Sarah Everts is a C&EN reporter, apparently stationed in Berlin. In the September 20, 2010 Issue of the C&EN, she has an article entitled "Naomi Oreskes. The subtitle says, "A Science Historian takes on climate-change skeptics and fights off their attacks".
Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.
Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.
Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.
However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.
In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.
Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli Must Investigate Possible Fraud In Global Warming Grants
There has been considerable controversy concerning investigations of possible fraud by academic individuals receiving government grants involving the subject of global warming.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Continuing Fraud of Climate Change
In its latest issue (11/29/10), Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Low-Octane Climate Talks". It reports on a two- week United Nations meeting in Cancun, Mexico. C&EN says expectations for the Cancun meeting are restrained, which is why it is reported as "Low-Octane".
In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.
Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.
The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.
The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.
The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.
It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.
In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".
In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".
In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.
Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.
The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.
The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.
The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.
It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.
In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".
In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Fraud of Regional Cap & Trade
A chemist friend from New Hampshire e-mailed me suggesting that I look at the article entitled, "Cap and Trade Programs" in the October 18 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. He went on to suggest that the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN, get out of politics and confine its activity to Chemistry and Membership.
The essence of the C&EN article is a report on the development of regional Cap and Trade groups, which are composed of several states. One of the state groups is Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and includes New Hampshire and nine other Northeast states. Since New Hampshire is involved, I can see why my friend is upset.
For the uninitiated, Cap & Trade was originally proposed on the federal level as a Socialist Federal gimmick to obtain additional tax revenues from US taxpayers and distribute a portion to other countries as wealth redistribution. The Obama Administration hoped to obtain public and Congressional approval by establishing a fear that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would adversely affect climate. Using that basis, the idea was to establish a maximum limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide from various industrial activities, including electricity generation, and use a permit exchange process, with associated tax. Fortunately, Congress has been able to see through the duplicity of the proposed program and while they have previously demonstrated support of any tax increase mechanisms, they appear to be listening to the general public, since it concerns their reelection.
When The C&EN article devotes three pages in trying to prove the foresightedness of individual states in coming together to form regional groups for small Cap & Trade programs. C&EN cites that in 2009, which was RGGI's first year of operation, CO2 emissions in those member states fell 34%, without any significant change in electricity prices. Note that there was no data given on electricity production, the Cap amounts of CO2 allowed, nor the amount of taxes collected. C&EN's implication is that formation of the regional Cap & Trade group was a great success in reducing CO2 emissions. However, we have shown several times that the mere idea of controlling carbon dioxide emissions is ridiculous from a climate control viewpoint. It is only another gimmick to collect taxes and was not indicated to have been accomplished in the C&EN account.
The likelihood is that for the year 2010, we will also see a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. However, such reduction will be purely coincidental with respect to any regional Cap & Trade programs. The general reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have been caused by lower level of electricity production, resulting from the recession, in which we still find ourselves. In addition, there has been a strong technological/economic advance in the power industry. Through a relatively new process of fracturing shale, large amounts of low-cost natural gas are now available as fuel for electricity generating plants. This has brought down the price of natural gas compared to coal, which has been the traditional fuel. Bloomberg Business Week, October 25, 2010, gives a natural gas price of $4.06 per million British Thermal Units. The coal price is given as $4.75 per million British Thermal Units. It is obvious that energy buyers will more likely purchase natural gas.
The conversion to use of natural gas will also coincidently reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though that has no practical significance. To produce 1 million BTUs of heat, burning 36 pounds of natural gas is required versus 72 pounds of coal. The burning of 36 pounds of natural gas produces 113 pounds of CO2, while burning 72 pounds of coal produces 264 pounds of CO2. It is obvious that burning natural gas versus coal for electricity production, automatically produces less than half the usual CO2 emissions. The key point here is that reduction of CO2 emission is likely unrelated to any Cap & Trade program, but is rather the substitution of natural gas for coal in electricity production.
There is nothing complex about the above calculations, and I strongly criticize C&EN in not having presented them and thus resulting in their use of deception in order to promote Cap & Trade as a regional reducer of CO2 emissions, and perpetuating the myth that CO2 emissions are significant in climate change.
Another interesting aspect is that the coincidental reduction in CO2 emissions, caused by recession and conversion to the use of natural gas versus coal, will likely lead to a continuance and expansion of regional Cap & Trade, as the public is more easily defrauded by national magazines and state government, as opposed to simple facts presented above. This will be unfortunate as the hole will be dug deeper. Lower caps will be required, thus requiring more trading taxes and installation of CO2 capture equipment at electric utilities, all of which will increase the cost of electricity to consumers. Down the line, the inhabitants of other states which have not become a part of this fraud system will be thanking their state governments for not having become a part of this silly program.
The essence of the C&EN article is a report on the development of regional Cap and Trade groups, which are composed of several states. One of the state groups is Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and includes New Hampshire and nine other Northeast states. Since New Hampshire is involved, I can see why my friend is upset.
For the uninitiated, Cap & Trade was originally proposed on the federal level as a Socialist Federal gimmick to obtain additional tax revenues from US taxpayers and distribute a portion to other countries as wealth redistribution. The Obama Administration hoped to obtain public and Congressional approval by establishing a fear that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would adversely affect climate. Using that basis, the idea was to establish a maximum limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide from various industrial activities, including electricity generation, and use a permit exchange process, with associated tax. Fortunately, Congress has been able to see through the duplicity of the proposed program and while they have previously demonstrated support of any tax increase mechanisms, they appear to be listening to the general public, since it concerns their reelection.
When The C&EN article devotes three pages in trying to prove the foresightedness of individual states in coming together to form regional groups for small Cap & Trade programs. C&EN cites that in 2009, which was RGGI's first year of operation, CO2 emissions in those member states fell 34%, without any significant change in electricity prices. Note that there was no data given on electricity production, the Cap amounts of CO2 allowed, nor the amount of taxes collected. C&EN's implication is that formation of the regional Cap & Trade group was a great success in reducing CO2 emissions. However, we have shown several times that the mere idea of controlling carbon dioxide emissions is ridiculous from a climate control viewpoint. It is only another gimmick to collect taxes and was not indicated to have been accomplished in the C&EN account.
The likelihood is that for the year 2010, we will also see a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. However, such reduction will be purely coincidental with respect to any regional Cap & Trade programs. The general reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have been caused by lower level of electricity production, resulting from the recession, in which we still find ourselves. In addition, there has been a strong technological/economic advance in the power industry. Through a relatively new process of fracturing shale, large amounts of low-cost natural gas are now available as fuel for electricity generating plants. This has brought down the price of natural gas compared to coal, which has been the traditional fuel. Bloomberg Business Week, October 25, 2010, gives a natural gas price of $4.06 per million British Thermal Units. The coal price is given as $4.75 per million British Thermal Units. It is obvious that energy buyers will more likely purchase natural gas.
The conversion to use of natural gas will also coincidently reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though that has no practical significance. To produce 1 million BTUs of heat, burning 36 pounds of natural gas is required versus 72 pounds of coal. The burning of 36 pounds of natural gas produces 113 pounds of CO2, while burning 72 pounds of coal produces 264 pounds of CO2. It is obvious that burning natural gas versus coal for electricity production, automatically produces less than half the usual CO2 emissions. The key point here is that reduction of CO2 emission is likely unrelated to any Cap & Trade program, but is rather the substitution of natural gas for coal in electricity production.
There is nothing complex about the above calculations, and I strongly criticize C&EN in not having presented them and thus resulting in their use of deception in order to promote Cap & Trade as a regional reducer of CO2 emissions, and perpetuating the myth that CO2 emissions are significant in climate change.
Another interesting aspect is that the coincidental reduction in CO2 emissions, caused by recession and conversion to the use of natural gas versus coal, will likely lead to a continuance and expansion of regional Cap & Trade, as the public is more easily defrauded by national magazines and state government, as opposed to simple facts presented above. This will be unfortunate as the hole will be dug deeper. Lower caps will be required, thus requiring more trading taxes and installation of CO2 capture equipment at electric utilities, all of which will increase the cost of electricity to consumers. Down the line, the inhabitants of other states which have not become a part of this fraud system will be thanking their state governments for not having become a part of this silly program.
Greenhouse Gas Deception
EIN News says, "Ireland's greenhouse gases fall for first time in two decades 24 Oct 2010 - 10:28".
Reading further into the article, it says, "Resulting from the economic downturn all sectors of industry and commerce witnessed a decline in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in two decades. The statistics published today by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that emission from the cement sector fell by well over a third."
There has been a worldwide recession, with a general reduction in the need for electricity and other forms of energy such as heat for production of Portland cement. It is highly likely that Ireland's total fuel use is down. But, note that the EPA, in a political move supporting the Obama administration on greenhouse gases, did not mention that. Their political agenda is to accent greenhouse gases, which we have demonstrated several times has no deleterious effects on climate change. This is a standard deceptive technique in using data incorrectly to support a political view, I abhor this action on the part of the EPA, which should be a respected agency.
Reading further into the article, it says, "Resulting from the economic downturn all sectors of industry and commerce witnessed a decline in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in two decades. The statistics published today by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that emission from the cement sector fell by well over a third."
There has been a worldwide recession, with a general reduction in the need for electricity and other forms of energy such as heat for production of Portland cement. It is highly likely that Ireland's total fuel use is down. But, note that the EPA, in a political move supporting the Obama administration on greenhouse gases, did not mention that. Their political agenda is to accent greenhouse gases, which we have demonstrated several times has no deleterious effects on climate change. This is a standard deceptive technique in using data incorrectly to support a political view, I abhor this action on the part of the EPA, which should be a respected agency.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Global Warming Is Good
The Moon has daylight and night, similar to Earth. It also is about the same distance from the Sun, which is the heater. NASDA says daytime temperature on the Moon is 260 degrees F, which is hotter than boiling water at 212 Degrees F. Nighttime temperature is MINUS 280 degrees F. Why the extremes compared to Earth? GLOBAL WARMING on Earth. None on the Moon, because the Moon has no gaseous atmosphere. NASA says. "The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy!"
Those who promote Earth's global warming as a disadvantage say the Moon has a tenuous atmosphere comprised of argon, polonium, radon, helium, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and that leads to a greenhouse effect on the Moon. This statement is contradictory to the observed temperatures and is also a red herring. There is no SIGNIFICANT atmosphere on the Moon. If there were it would be measurable as a realistic reading on a device for measurement of atmospheric pressure.
Notice that in the above claim for a Moon atmosphere, many specific gases are mentioned. The purpose for this specification is to awe the reader and develop respect for the intellectual capacity of the writer. Don't be fooled. It's snake oil gobble de gook. It is likely that all these components are present but at such low concentrations as to have no significant effect. Amounts and concentrations are always important. One can drown in a lake, but a drop of water presents no danger.
If you would like to see more convoluted information and fictional conclusions on global warming, see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/. In so doing, notice the use of the term "tenuous", which means having little substance or effectively so weak as to be insignificant. Notice also the new word "exosphere". in place of atmosphere. NASA says that 1 cubic centimeter of Earth's
atmospheric gases contains 100 billion billion molecules. One cubic centimeter of the Moon's atmospheric gases contains only about 100 molecules.
Why are we even talking about this? The Moon has no atmosphere, which is why it is subject to the temperature extremes of outer space. Earth has a protective atmosphere, We can say it results in global warming, but it also results in global cooling. Global warming and global cooling are good for us.
Those who promote Earth's global warming as a disadvantage say the Moon has a tenuous atmosphere comprised of argon, polonium, radon, helium, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and that leads to a greenhouse effect on the Moon. This statement is contradictory to the observed temperatures and is also a red herring. There is no SIGNIFICANT atmosphere on the Moon. If there were it would be measurable as a realistic reading on a device for measurement of atmospheric pressure.
Notice that in the above claim for a Moon atmosphere, many specific gases are mentioned. The purpose for this specification is to awe the reader and develop respect for the intellectual capacity of the writer. Don't be fooled. It's snake oil gobble de gook. It is likely that all these components are present but at such low concentrations as to have no significant effect. Amounts and concentrations are always important. One can drown in a lake, but a drop of water presents no danger.
If you would like to see more convoluted information and fictional conclusions on global warming, see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/. In so doing, notice the use of the term "tenuous", which means having little substance or effectively so weak as to be insignificant. Notice also the new word "exosphere". in place of atmosphere. NASA says that 1 cubic centimeter of Earth's
atmospheric gases contains 100 billion billion molecules. One cubic centimeter of the Moon's atmospheric gases contains only about 100 molecules.
Why are we even talking about this? The Moon has no atmosphere, which is why it is subject to the temperature extremes of outer space. Earth has a protective atmosphere, We can say it results in global warming, but it also results in global cooling. Global warming and global cooling are good for us.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Further Weakening of Cap & Trade
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Drilling Regulations Snagged by Climate Fight. The Obama administration's push to beef up regulation of offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill could get sidetracked by a battle over the White House's climate-change policy. (wsj.com)".
From the above headline, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening. Delving a little deeper into the original Wall Street Journal article, a few excerpts makes the situation significantly clearer.
The background is that Obama socialistic ideology of redistributing wealth globally must use the big tool of Cap & Trade. This must apply to carbon dioxide emission controls. Jackson, who is head of the EPA and who works for Obama, is obviously following Obama's directives by pushing for control of carbon dioxide emissions from all energy production in the US. Note that in every instance, reference is made to greenhouse gases, rather than defining the exact objective of controlling carbon dioxide emission. We obviously have no difficulty in controlling emissions of Freon and other manufactured chemicals, but carbon dioxide is in a completely different category. First it is a natural product of the environment and second, it's control would be a humongous undertaking involving many billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, which is why the Obama Administration is pushing it.
Here are a few excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:
"The Senate Appropriations Committee had planned to vote Tuesday on a proposal to fund offshore drilling regulation and the operations of the Environmental Protection Agency. But that vote was canceled." Republicans said, " Sen. Lisa. Murkowski (R., Alaska) would [likely] offer an amendment to prohibit the EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and other major emitters." This threat to control the actions of the EPA, which is the Administration's most powerful socialistic tool in climate control, apparently has worried the Administration to the extent that they even canceled the combined drilling/EPA increased funding proposal.
"Some Democrats have also called for a time-out on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, saying they worry that such regulations would stifle the economy and threaten jobs." This is a clear indication that the Administration is losing Democratic support for their global Cap & Trade program. Apparently some financially hard-nosed Democrats are starting to recognize the need for improving the US economy and particularly the job situation, rather than pie-in-the-sky global warming.
Randy, this is all good news. Please keep up the pressure to convince other Democrats that there are limits to do-gooder, giveaway programs, especially on an international basis.
EIN News says, "Drilling Regulations Snagged by Climate Fight. The Obama administration's push to beef up regulation of offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill could get sidetracked by a battle over the White House's climate-change policy. (wsj.com)".
From the above headline, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening. Delving a little deeper into the original Wall Street Journal article, a few excerpts makes the situation significantly clearer.
The background is that Obama socialistic ideology of redistributing wealth globally must use the big tool of Cap & Trade. This must apply to carbon dioxide emission controls. Jackson, who is head of the EPA and who works for Obama, is obviously following Obama's directives by pushing for control of carbon dioxide emissions from all energy production in the US. Note that in every instance, reference is made to greenhouse gases, rather than defining the exact objective of controlling carbon dioxide emission. We obviously have no difficulty in controlling emissions of Freon and other manufactured chemicals, but carbon dioxide is in a completely different category. First it is a natural product of the environment and second, it's control would be a humongous undertaking involving many billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, which is why the Obama Administration is pushing it.
Here are a few excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:
"The Senate Appropriations Committee had planned to vote Tuesday on a proposal to fund offshore drilling regulation and the operations of the Environmental Protection Agency. But that vote was canceled." Republicans said, " Sen. Lisa. Murkowski (R., Alaska) would [likely] offer an amendment to prohibit the EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and other major emitters." This threat to control the actions of the EPA, which is the Administration's most powerful socialistic tool in climate control, apparently has worried the Administration to the extent that they even canceled the combined drilling/EPA increased funding proposal.
"Some Democrats have also called for a time-out on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, saying they worry that such regulations would stifle the economy and threaten jobs." This is a clear indication that the Administration is losing Democratic support for their global Cap & Trade program. Apparently some financially hard-nosed Democrats are starting to recognize the need for improving the US economy and particularly the job situation, rather than pie-in-the-sky global warming.
Randy, this is all good news. Please keep up the pressure to convince other Democrats that there are limits to do-gooder, giveaway programs, especially on an international basis.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Chinese Publicity on Reducing CO2 Emissions Is Window Dressing Rather Than Reality.
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
Chinese Publicity on Reducing CO2 Emissions Is Window Dressing Rather Than Reality.
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".
The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).
Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.
Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.
The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.
The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.
Manufacturing the Weather
E-Mail to Congress:
It appears that Cap & Trade and anything related to carbon dioxide as a climate control agent is now generally less accepted. However, it will be difficult for this one to die, because it is a strong part of Pres. Obama's plan to redistribute wealth worldwide. You must be eternally vigilant that the Administration does not put one over on you. Our best protection is your knowledge concerning climate control and vigilance.
The Chemical Heritage Foundation of Philadelphia is an organization appealing to the nostalgic interest of persons interested in chemistry and the chemical industry. The organization publishes "Chemical Heritage" magazine, with four issues per year. The latest issue is Volume 28; Number 2 Summer 2010. It contains an article entitled, "Manufacturing the Weather" by James Rodgers Fleming.
Mr. Fleming does a wonderful job of reviewing the history of climate control, in his 4-page article.
The following is a description of the article: "With dynamite, fireworks, cannons, and kites, Robert St. George Dyrenforth hoped to end drought in the late 19th century. His vision of weather controlled by man seized the imagination of scientists and businessmen alike. In the heat of climate change, the appeal---and the controversy---surrounding this vision endures."
Mr. Fleming's article starts with the activities of meteorologist James P. Espy in the 1830s. Espy developed a theory that convection was the primary cause of rain. He proposed lighting huge fires along the Appalachian Mountains to provide heat, smoke, and particulate matter needed to trigger storms and enhance the nations rainfall.
After reviewing the history, Mr. Fleming concluded that, "Throughout history rainmakers and climate engineers have typically fallen into two categories: commercial charlatans using technical language and proprietary technologies to cash in on a gullible public, and sincere but deluded scientific practitioners exhibiting a modicum of chemical and physical knowledge, a bare minimum of atmospheric insight, and an abundance of hubris".
It appears that Cap & Trade and anything related to carbon dioxide as a climate control agent is now generally less accepted. However, it will be difficult for this one to die, because it is a strong part of Pres. Obama's plan to redistribute wealth worldwide. You must be eternally vigilant that the Administration does not put one over on you. Our best protection is your knowledge concerning climate control and vigilance.
The Chemical Heritage Foundation of Philadelphia is an organization appealing to the nostalgic interest of persons interested in chemistry and the chemical industry. The organization publishes "Chemical Heritage" magazine, with four issues per year. The latest issue is Volume 28; Number 2 Summer 2010. It contains an article entitled, "Manufacturing the Weather" by James Rodgers Fleming.
Mr. Fleming does a wonderful job of reviewing the history of climate control, in his 4-page article.
The following is a description of the article: "With dynamite, fireworks, cannons, and kites, Robert St. George Dyrenforth hoped to end drought in the late 19th century. His vision of weather controlled by man seized the imagination of scientists and businessmen alike. In the heat of climate change, the appeal---and the controversy---surrounding this vision endures."
Mr. Fleming's article starts with the activities of meteorologist James P. Espy in the 1830s. Espy developed a theory that convection was the primary cause of rain. He proposed lighting huge fires along the Appalachian Mountains to provide heat, smoke, and particulate matter needed to trigger storms and enhance the nations rainfall.
After reviewing the history, Mr. Fleming concluded that, "Throughout history rainmakers and climate engineers have typically fallen into two categories: commercial charlatans using technical language and proprietary technologies to cash in on a gullible public, and sincere but deluded scientific practitioners exhibiting a modicum of chemical and physical knowledge, a bare minimum of atmospheric insight, and an abundance of hubris".
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Greenhouse Gas is Falling
A US fairy tale
Adapted by Arthur Sucsy
Once upon a time there was a tiny, tiny chicken named Chicken Little. One day Chicken Little was scratching in the garden when something fell on her head.
"Oh," cried Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling. I must go tell the president."
So Chicken Little ran and ran, and she met Henny Penny.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.
"Ah, Henny Penny," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and I must go and tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you to the president," said Henny Penny.
So they ran along together, and they met Ducky Daddles.
"Where do you travel so fast?" asked Ducky Daddles.
"Ah, Ducky Daddles," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and Henny Penny and I go to tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Ducky Daddles.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you to the president," said Ducky Daddles.
So they ran along together, and they met Goosey Loosey.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.
"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling. Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and I go to tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you," said Goosey Loosey.
So they ran along together, and they met Turkey Lurkey.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Turkey Lurkey.
"Ah, Turkey Lurkey," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and Goosey Loosey and I go to tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling?" asked Turkey Lurkey.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you to the president," said Turkey Lurkey.
So they ran along together, and they met Foxy Loxy.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Foxy Loxy.
"Ah, Foxy Loxy," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and we go to tell the president."
"Do you know the way to the president's house?" asked Foxy Loxy.
"No," said Chicken Little.
"No," said Henny Penny.
"No," said Ducky Daddles.
"No," said Goosey Loosey.
"No," said Turkey Lurkey.
"Then come with me and I will show you," said Foxy Loxy.
And just as he was about to lead them into his den to eat them...
...the greenhouse gas fell on him.
"Oh dear," said Chicken Little.
"We're too late," said Henny Penny.
"Poor Foxy Loxy," said Ducky Daddles.
"No sense in going to the president," said Goosey Loosey.
"Nothing to do now but go home," said Turkey Lurkey.
And they did.
Adapted by Arthur Sucsy
Once upon a time there was a tiny, tiny chicken named Chicken Little. One day Chicken Little was scratching in the garden when something fell on her head.
"Oh," cried Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling. I must go tell the president."
So Chicken Little ran and ran, and she met Henny Penny.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.
"Ah, Henny Penny," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and I must go and tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you to the president," said Henny Penny.
So they ran along together, and they met Ducky Daddles.
"Where do you travel so fast?" asked Ducky Daddles.
"Ah, Ducky Daddles," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and Henny Penny and I go to tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Ducky Daddles.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you to the president," said Ducky Daddles.
So they ran along together, and they met Goosey Loosey.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.
"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling. Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and I go to tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you," said Goosey Loosey.
So they ran along together, and they met Turkey Lurkey.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Turkey Lurkey.
"Ah, Turkey Lurkey," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and Goosey Loosey and I go to tell the president."
"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling?" asked Turkey Lurkey.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
"I will go with you to the president," said Turkey Lurkey.
So they ran along together, and they met Foxy Loxy.
"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Foxy Loxy.
"Ah, Foxy Loxy," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and we go to tell the president."
"Do you know the way to the president's house?" asked Foxy Loxy.
"No," said Chicken Little.
"No," said Henny Penny.
"No," said Ducky Daddles.
"No," said Goosey Loosey.
"No," said Turkey Lurkey.
"Then come with me and I will show you," said Foxy Loxy.
And just as he was about to lead them into his den to eat them...
...the greenhouse gas fell on him.
"Oh dear," said Chicken Little.
"We're too late," said Henny Penny.
"Poor Foxy Loxy," said Ducky Daddles.
"No sense in going to the president," said Goosey Loosey.
"Nothing to do now but go home," said Turkey Lurkey.
And they did.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Further Exposure of Global Warming Hoax
E-Mail to Congress:
An Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine paper, in traditional scientific format on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global warming is at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.
The details expose the hoax of claiming global warming is caused by a man-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Knowing your shortness of time to cover a multitude of subjects, I present here the Abstract as follows:
"ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects
upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide
has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon
use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to
current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of
rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries
are discussed."
In addition, C&EN (8/9/10, p 6) reminds us that the EPA began last December the regulatory process of controlling CO2 emissions by electric utilities, chemical companies, and "other sources". The EPA is now moving ahead with final regulations on motor vehicles.`
Congress gave birth to the EPA and has a responsibility to see that it continues to perform as conceived. As Bill Cosby said to his son on TV, "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out".
The EPA does some good work, and I don't recommend their dismantling. However with respect to CO2 and global warming, Director Jackson appears to have given up her respect for science and has followed the political road of Pres. Obama's idealisms. I believe it is Congress' job to get the EPA back on track or shut it down and start over.
An Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine paper, in traditional scientific format on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global warming is at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.
The details expose the hoax of claiming global warming is caused by a man-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Knowing your shortness of time to cover a multitude of subjects, I present here the Abstract as follows:
"ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects
upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide
has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon
use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to
current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of
rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries
are discussed."
In addition, C&EN (8/9/10, p 6) reminds us that the EPA began last December the regulatory process of controlling CO2 emissions by electric utilities, chemical companies, and "other sources". The EPA is now moving ahead with final regulations on motor vehicles.`
Congress gave birth to the EPA and has a responsibility to see that it continues to perform as conceived. As Bill Cosby said to his son on TV, "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out".
The EPA does some good work, and I don't recommend their dismantling. However with respect to CO2 and global warming, Director Jackson appears to have given up her respect for science and has followed the political road of Pres. Obama's idealisms. I believe it is Congress' job to get the EPA back on track or shut it down and start over.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Hand-to-Hand Combat and Global Warming
E-Mail to Congress:
Randy,
I recently sent the following message to Rep. Giffords, D of Arizona:
Dear Ms. Giffords,
I have seen considerable criticism of your question to Gen. Patreus concerning what he is doing to control carbon dioxide emissions on the battlefield.
Having some experience in war and considerable experience as a scientist, I thought I might try to explain a few technicalities, which might modify your opinion on war and global warming.
You suggested use f more hand-to-hand combat involving knives and bayonets, rather than bullets and bombs, in an effort to suppress emission of carbon dioxide. The realization of war is to kill the enemy without being killed yourself.
Hand-to-hand combat is a one on one encounter with about a 50% chance that you yourself will be killed. It is much more practical for the individual and the war in general if the odds of survival can be increased, which they can be through use of bombs and bullets. This is generally true for industrialized nations, such as the United States, which has technically superior weapons.
However, it is granted that in the use of bullets and bombs, there is a release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations, which might take a half hour, will also show that the amount of such carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant as related to the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amounts produced daily merely by the breathing of human beings.
I believe that when you brought up the subject to Gen. Petraus, you were thinking of global warming and the myth that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere significantly affects such global warming.
We do have global warming, but the carbon dioxide affect is not significant. Earth is protected by an atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases form a greenhouse effect to retain heat at the surface. Without it, we would all freeze to death. Therefore, to say that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas is a gross exaggeration, especially when its heat transmission is not significantly different from other gases and its concentration in the atmosphere is only about 0.04%.
Some data may show that the Earth is warmer now than it might have been 1 or 100 years ago, but there's also significant data to show that the Earth has been warmer during other time periods. These differences are caused by variations in solar radiation output and not by any actions on the part of mankind.
I hope this gets battlefield and global warming understanding in perspective for you.
Randy,
I recently sent the following message to Rep. Giffords, D of Arizona:
Dear Ms. Giffords,
I have seen considerable criticism of your question to Gen. Patreus concerning what he is doing to control carbon dioxide emissions on the battlefield.
Having some experience in war and considerable experience as a scientist, I thought I might try to explain a few technicalities, which might modify your opinion on war and global warming.
You suggested use f more hand-to-hand combat involving knives and bayonets, rather than bullets and bombs, in an effort to suppress emission of carbon dioxide. The realization of war is to kill the enemy without being killed yourself.
Hand-to-hand combat is a one on one encounter with about a 50% chance that you yourself will be killed. It is much more practical for the individual and the war in general if the odds of survival can be increased, which they can be through use of bombs and bullets. This is generally true for industrialized nations, such as the United States, which has technically superior weapons.
However, it is granted that in the use of bullets and bombs, there is a release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations, which might take a half hour, will also show that the amount of such carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant as related to the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amounts produced daily merely by the breathing of human beings.
I believe that when you brought up the subject to Gen. Petraus, you were thinking of global warming and the myth that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere significantly affects such global warming.
We do have global warming, but the carbon dioxide affect is not significant. Earth is protected by an atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases form a greenhouse effect to retain heat at the surface. Without it, we would all freeze to death. Therefore, to say that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas is a gross exaggeration, especially when its heat transmission is not significantly different from other gases and its concentration in the atmosphere is only about 0.04%.
Some data may show that the Earth is warmer now than it might have been 1 or 100 years ago, but there's also significant data to show that the Earth has been warmer during other time periods. These differences are caused by variations in solar radiation output and not by any actions on the part of mankind.
I hope this gets battlefield and global warming understanding in perspective for you.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
EPA Acts Favorably on Acid Rain
E-Mail to Congress:
Credit where credit is due!
C&EN reports on July 12 that the EPA is cracking down on power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx. These are gaseous emissions, which when mixed with rain form acids; so-called "acid rain". The scientific basis of acid rain is well documented and consistent with theory and physical observations. The gases are "anhydrides", which chemically react with water to form acids. The SO2 forms sulfurous acid, which is relatively weak, but as SO2 exists in the atmosphere, it is slowly further oxidized to SO3, which then forms powerful sulfuric acid when reacted with water.
The interesting aspect about this is that the EPA has embarked on a real program, rather than a "pie-in-the-sky" program of chasing the Devil CO2, which we have shown many times does not deserve consideration.
I guess that this only could've happened because Obama and his henchmen of socialistic advisors and czars, who have been promoting CO2 emission control as a method to redistribute worldwide income, were not watching. Perhaps they don't understand the realism of acid rain compared to speculative global warming.
Credit where credit is due!
C&EN reports on July 12 that the EPA is cracking down on power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx. These are gaseous emissions, which when mixed with rain form acids; so-called "acid rain". The scientific basis of acid rain is well documented and consistent with theory and physical observations. The gases are "anhydrides", which chemically react with water to form acids. The SO2 forms sulfurous acid, which is relatively weak, but as SO2 exists in the atmosphere, it is slowly further oxidized to SO3, which then forms powerful sulfuric acid when reacted with water.
The interesting aspect about this is that the EPA has embarked on a real program, rather than a "pie-in-the-sky" program of chasing the Devil CO2, which we have shown many times does not deserve consideration.
I guess that this only could've happened because Obama and his henchmen of socialistic advisors and czars, who have been promoting CO2 emission control as a method to redistribute worldwide income, were not watching. Perhaps they don't understand the realism of acid rain compared to speculative global warming.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Another Waste in Carbon Dioxide Storage
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Hands Out $21.3 Million to 15 Facilities in 12 States to Develop Storage Technology. U.S. Department of Energy officials announced $21.3 million in funding for facilities to create safe and economical technologies nationwide for storing carbon dioxide in geologic formations. (latimes.com)".
The Obama Administration will just not give up on this carbon dioxide thing. They wanted to establish worldwide limitations on carbon dioxide emissions to the economic disadvantage of the US. They couldn't get the votes in Congress and are now trying to piecemeal it into the same thing. We call this the "reverse salami" approach. This means you add very thin slices until you finally get the whole salami.
We have many times shown that there is no scientific basis for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, nor capture and storage of same. The heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than through other atmospheric gases, and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere puts the final nail in the coffin.
Even a nickel spent on carbon dioxide control or storage is a waste, and here we have $21.3 million being blown down the drain.
Can't you do something about this stupidity?
EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Hands Out $21.3 Million to 15 Facilities in 12 States to Develop Storage Technology. U.S. Department of Energy officials announced $21.3 million in funding for facilities to create safe and economical technologies nationwide for storing carbon dioxide in geologic formations. (latimes.com)".
The Obama Administration will just not give up on this carbon dioxide thing. They wanted to establish worldwide limitations on carbon dioxide emissions to the economic disadvantage of the US. They couldn't get the votes in Congress and are now trying to piecemeal it into the same thing. We call this the "reverse salami" approach. This means you add very thin slices until you finally get the whole salami.
We have many times shown that there is no scientific basis for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, nor capture and storage of same. The heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than through other atmospheric gases, and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere puts the final nail in the coffin.
Even a nickel spent on carbon dioxide control or storage is a waste, and here we have $21.3 million being blown down the drain.
Can't you do something about this stupidity?
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
American Chemical Society Incorrectly Promotes Global Warming Fear from CO2
E-Mail to Congress:
Stephen K. Ritter has a four-page article entitled, "Carbon Dioxide's Unsettled Future" in the July 26 Issue C&EN.
The first part of the article is a claim on the global-warming consequences of carbon-based energy. There is no explanation of why we should believe that hypothesis. In the mind of Stephen Ritter, it appears to be an accepted fact.
He goes on to quote the position of Frank Zhu, an employee of UOP/Honeywell. Zhu picks up the ball as the "unquestionable fact" carbon dioxide is a culprit in global warming. His discourse covers three attitudes; those who want to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient use of energy, those who want to eliminate CO2 emissions by capturing CO2, and those who will dilute CO2 emissions by using more solar and wind energy. Notice that all of this involves an assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced. Notice also that Frank Zhu is in the business of applying UOP/Honeywell technology to CO2 capture.
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is Joseph Powell of Shell Global Solutions. One would think that Shell would be opposed to reducing oil production for a reduction in CO2 emission. However, there is some confusion in the collective Shell mind. It may be that Shell is being swayed by general public opinion, but they also may consider this an opportunity to "overly complex" the technology to Shell's economic advantage. The confusion arises from the difference between their apparently stated position versus what they're actually doing. For example, they have an arrangement with Iogen to produce ethanol. May I remind you that when you burn ethanol, you produce CO2? Shell also has a joint venture with Cellana to produce triglycerides for Diesel use. May I remind you that when you burn Diesel fuel, you produce CO2? Shell is working with Codexis to develop enzymes that convert biomass into fuels. May I remind you that when these fuels are burned, you produce CO2?
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is George Richards of the US Department of Energy. Notice that even before we begin his comments, he is likely to be biased because he works for Pres. Obama, who has many times clearly indicated his strong position for equalizing world incomes, and that would include hamstringing the United States by fostering economic growth to less developed countries. He would do this by a carbon dioxide tax on US energy users in the United States and sending a substantial portion of that income to less developed countries under the guise of decreasing their CO2 emissions for a worldwide benefit of reduced global warming. Again, there is no mention anywhere of a scientifically developed connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Richards says that less developed countries are going to use fossil fuel resources with elimination of CO2, and implies that we must supply them with the technology for CO2 capture. The Department of Energy is developing and testing capture, storage, and use technologies in collaboration with academic and industrial partners, including power producers and petrochemical companies. All of this is being done at taxpayer expense for a project on which there is a substantial disbelief in its necessity.
All of the above comes from the first page of Ritter's article. The other three pages involve explanations of all of the work being done on CO2 capture. This makes interesting reading for scientists and engineers, and especially those having a "financial special interest". However, the question is "why?". Comic books are also interesting reading, but at least they do no significant damage to the economy.
Stephen K. Ritter has a four-page article entitled, "Carbon Dioxide's Unsettled Future" in the July 26 Issue C&EN.
The first part of the article is a claim on the global-warming consequences of carbon-based energy. There is no explanation of why we should believe that hypothesis. In the mind of Stephen Ritter, it appears to be an accepted fact.
He goes on to quote the position of Frank Zhu, an employee of UOP/Honeywell. Zhu picks up the ball as the "unquestionable fact" carbon dioxide is a culprit in global warming. His discourse covers three attitudes; those who want to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient use of energy, those who want to eliminate CO2 emissions by capturing CO2, and those who will dilute CO2 emissions by using more solar and wind energy. Notice that all of this involves an assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced. Notice also that Frank Zhu is in the business of applying UOP/Honeywell technology to CO2 capture.
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is Joseph Powell of Shell Global Solutions. One would think that Shell would be opposed to reducing oil production for a reduction in CO2 emission. However, there is some confusion in the collective Shell mind. It may be that Shell is being swayed by general public opinion, but they also may consider this an opportunity to "overly complex" the technology to Shell's economic advantage. The confusion arises from the difference between their apparently stated position versus what they're actually doing. For example, they have an arrangement with Iogen to produce ethanol. May I remind you that when you burn ethanol, you produce CO2? Shell also has a joint venture with Cellana to produce triglycerides for Diesel use. May I remind you that when you burn Diesel fuel, you produce CO2? Shell is working with Codexis to develop enzymes that convert biomass into fuels. May I remind you that when these fuels are burned, you produce CO2?
Another person referred to in Ritter's article is George Richards of the US Department of Energy. Notice that even before we begin his comments, he is likely to be biased because he works for Pres. Obama, who has many times clearly indicated his strong position for equalizing world incomes, and that would include hamstringing the United States by fostering economic growth to less developed countries. He would do this by a carbon dioxide tax on US energy users in the United States and sending a substantial portion of that income to less developed countries under the guise of decreasing their CO2 emissions for a worldwide benefit of reduced global warming. Again, there is no mention anywhere of a scientifically developed connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Richards says that less developed countries are going to use fossil fuel resources with elimination of CO2, and implies that we must supply them with the technology for CO2 capture. The Department of Energy is developing and testing capture, storage, and use technologies in collaboration with academic and industrial partners, including power producers and petrochemical companies. All of this is being done at taxpayer expense for a project on which there is a substantial disbelief in its necessity.
All of the above comes from the first page of Ritter's article. The other three pages involve explanations of all of the work being done on CO2 capture. This makes interesting reading for scientists and engineers, and especially those having a "financial special interest". However, the question is "why?". Comic books are also interesting reading, but at least they do no significant damage to the economy.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Why Is the Energy Department Giving up CO2 Capture in Power Plants?
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Changes Plan on Capturing Coal Emissions. The Energy Department abruptly shifted course on a flagship federal effort to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, saying it would not finance construction of a new plant in Mattoon, Ill. (nytimes.com)".
This is good news, because of its practicality. However I am interested in the motivation. Does the energy Department now think that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous greenhouse gas to be controlled? Is the national debt becoming too high such that it can't be justified financially?
Maybe you can ferret out the reason why the Energy Department has taken this new stance. If there is a reversal of opinion on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, there is still some hope for the country.
EIN News says, "U.S. Changes Plan on Capturing Coal Emissions. The Energy Department abruptly shifted course on a flagship federal effort to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, saying it would not finance construction of a new plant in Mattoon, Ill. (nytimes.com)".
This is good news, because of its practicality. However I am interested in the motivation. Does the energy Department now think that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous greenhouse gas to be controlled? Is the national debt becoming too high such that it can't be justified financially?
Maybe you can ferret out the reason why the Energy Department has taken this new stance. If there is a reversal of opinion on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, there is still some hope for the country.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Sen. Kerry's Climate Bill Is a Boogie Man Tax
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Energy Measure Would Cut Deficit by $19 Billion, Report Says. Senator John F. Kerry's signature energy and climate change legislation would cut the deficit by $19 billion, according to an estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation faces strong opposition from Republicans and some Democrats from energy-producing states, but the report gives the Massachusetts Democrat and his allies a compelling financial argument amid concerns about the implications of a burgeoning deficit. (boston.com)".
I refer to this as the $19 billion Boogie Man tax disguised as Fairy Godmother deficit reduction. If you don't pay the tax, the Boogie Man will getcha! Only young children and halfwits believe in the Boogie Man and that is about the same belief level as those believing that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes significantly to global warming.
If Kerry and his deceptive or misguided associates are unsuccessful in pushing this through, maybe they need a more honest or practical approach. How about everybody with income above $10,000 per year kick in $1000 to a kitty? We then take $500 per donor and distribute it to the low income group. We then take a $250 per donor reduction against the national debt. Finally, we take the last $250 per donor and apply it to new dreamed up spending to get the economy rolling.
EIN News says, "Energy Measure Would Cut Deficit by $19 Billion, Report Says. Senator John F. Kerry's signature energy and climate change legislation would cut the deficit by $19 billion, according to an estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation faces strong opposition from Republicans and some Democrats from energy-producing states, but the report gives the Massachusetts Democrat and his allies a compelling financial argument amid concerns about the implications of a burgeoning deficit. (boston.com)".
I refer to this as the $19 billion Boogie Man tax disguised as Fairy Godmother deficit reduction. If you don't pay the tax, the Boogie Man will getcha! Only young children and halfwits believe in the Boogie Man and that is about the same belief level as those believing that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes significantly to global warming.
If Kerry and his deceptive or misguided associates are unsuccessful in pushing this through, maybe they need a more honest or practical approach. How about everybody with income above $10,000 per year kick in $1000 to a kitty? We then take $500 per donor and distribute it to the low income group. We then take a $250 per donor reduction against the national debt. Finally, we take the last $250 per donor and apply it to new dreamed up spending to get the economy rolling.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Obama's Hard Sell of Cap & Trade to Senators
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "President Obama's 'Moment of Truth' for Energy Bill. With time ticking away before the midterm elections, President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan group of senators at the White House in the hope of finding some consensus on capping greenhouse gases. (politico.com)".
The consensus for this idea must be to kill it in the womb, as if it were Rosemary's Baby. The proposal is stupid and nonsensical. I previously had a high regard for the English, but this theory of carbon dioxide significantly contributing to global warming takes my regard down many notches.
I normally take a negotiating attitude in resolving a problem, but this is no problem. It is an absurd proposal. The outcome of the negotiation must be that Senators will collectively fight tooth and nail against the Administration on this proposal to destroy the American economy.
EIN News says, "President Obama's 'Moment of Truth' for Energy Bill. With time ticking away before the midterm elections, President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan group of senators at the White House in the hope of finding some consensus on capping greenhouse gases. (politico.com)".
The consensus for this idea must be to kill it in the womb, as if it were Rosemary's Baby. The proposal is stupid and nonsensical. I previously had a high regard for the English, but this theory of carbon dioxide significantly contributing to global warming takes my regard down many notches.
I normally take a negotiating attitude in resolving a problem, but this is no problem. It is an absurd proposal. The outcome of the negotiation must be that Senators will collectively fight tooth and nail against the Administration on this proposal to destroy the American economy.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Climate Change Bill Will Radically Reduce American Lifestyle
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Support for U.S. Climate Regulation Growing, Poll Finds. A growing number of Americans want the United States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as the largest oil spill in U.S. history helps boost interest in petroleum alternatives, a poll by two universities found. (reuters.com)".
I suppose the public may be thinking that by reducing carbon dioxide emission, we will reduce the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. If we don't use gasoline and diesel fuel, we won't need crude oil from the Gulf or anywhere else and this will eliminate the possibility of oil spills.
Even though there is no relation between carbon dioxide emission and climate change, there are some other favorable aspects to the proposal. The noise level from automotive vehicles will be significantly reduced. People will be more healthful by walking and bicycle riding. People will spend significantly less money on purchase of automobiles and their upkeep.
Unfortunately, there will be some downsides. There will be no pleasure from driving an automotive vehicle. More time will be spent traveling to and from the grocery store. Visiting friends or relatives in other parts of town or the country will be eliminated. Jobs for making and maintaining automotive vehicles will be eliminated. Jobs for producing and refining crude oil will be eliminated.
Everything has its upsides and downsides. I like my automobile. It is very helpful to me for my standard of living. I am willing to spend the money on its upkeep. Any carbon dioxide emitted in its operation will have no effect on climate change.
As a Representative, I suggest you be careful of what people say they want. In many cases "they know not what they do".
EIN News says, "Support for U.S. Climate Regulation Growing, Poll Finds. A growing number of Americans want the United States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as the largest oil spill in U.S. history helps boost interest in petroleum alternatives, a poll by two universities found. (reuters.com)".
I suppose the public may be thinking that by reducing carbon dioxide emission, we will reduce the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. If we don't use gasoline and diesel fuel, we won't need crude oil from the Gulf or anywhere else and this will eliminate the possibility of oil spills.
Even though there is no relation between carbon dioxide emission and climate change, there are some other favorable aspects to the proposal. The noise level from automotive vehicles will be significantly reduced. People will be more healthful by walking and bicycle riding. People will spend significantly less money on purchase of automobiles and their upkeep.
Unfortunately, there will be some downsides. There will be no pleasure from driving an automotive vehicle. More time will be spent traveling to and from the grocery store. Visiting friends or relatives in other parts of town or the country will be eliminated. Jobs for making and maintaining automotive vehicles will be eliminated. Jobs for producing and refining crude oil will be eliminated.
Everything has its upsides and downsides. I like my automobile. It is very helpful to me for my standard of living. I am willing to spend the money on its upkeep. Any carbon dioxide emitted in its operation will have no effect on climate change.
As a Representative, I suggest you be careful of what people say they want. In many cases "they know not what they do".
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Lieberman/Kerry Climate Bill Is a Fraud and Deception
E-Mail to Congress:
Senators Lieberman and Kerry introduced their climate-change bill in the Senate last month. (Chemical and Engineering News, May 17, 2010, page 10). The bill is nearly 1000 pages long.
The purpose of very lengthy bills is to hide something within and/or include enough "goodies" that Representatives and Senators will pass the bills in consideration that the negative aspects will likely do little harm.
In this case, the inclusion of Cap & Trade will do irreparable harm to our economy.
In addition to the questionable ethics of deviously promoting a negative aspect, there is another consideration. The bill includes start of CO2 compliance in 2016. If this is an urgent matter, why the postponement for six years? Answer: No one really knows what the situation will be 6 years down the road and most people realize this. Therefore, it is another incentive to pass the bill, because most Representatives and Senators will take the attitude that they can vote positively on the bill now, since nothing bad will happen for six years.
This bill is a fraud and deception. I realize you and other Republicans will vote against it, but you are outnumbered. The only opportunity to kill it is to obtain the cooperation of some Democrats. Not all Democrats are committed to the World-Order, with the distraction of the United States. Many of them have just not yet seen the World Order program of the Obama administration. Many are also uneducated on aspects of climate, including global warming, and do not realize that it has no scientific basis. It is your job to educate as many of these Democrats as possible. Do not talk with Republicans, other than to form a coordinated educational program for Democrats. Then, educate the more reasonable Democrats on this subject. If you need scientific facts for the convincing, I am available.
Senators Lieberman and Kerry introduced their climate-change bill in the Senate last month. (Chemical and Engineering News, May 17, 2010, page 10). The bill is nearly 1000 pages long.
The purpose of very lengthy bills is to hide something within and/or include enough "goodies" that Representatives and Senators will pass the bills in consideration that the negative aspects will likely do little harm.
In this case, the inclusion of Cap & Trade will do irreparable harm to our economy.
In addition to the questionable ethics of deviously promoting a negative aspect, there is another consideration. The bill includes start of CO2 compliance in 2016. If this is an urgent matter, why the postponement for six years? Answer: No one really knows what the situation will be 6 years down the road and most people realize this. Therefore, it is another incentive to pass the bill, because most Representatives and Senators will take the attitude that they can vote positively on the bill now, since nothing bad will happen for six years.
This bill is a fraud and deception. I realize you and other Republicans will vote against it, but you are outnumbered. The only opportunity to kill it is to obtain the cooperation of some Democrats. Not all Democrats are committed to the World-Order, with the distraction of the United States. Many of them have just not yet seen the World Order program of the Obama administration. Many are also uneducated on aspects of climate, including global warming, and do not realize that it has no scientific basis. It is your job to educate as many of these Democrats as possible. Do not talk with Republicans, other than to form a coordinated educational program for Democrats. Then, educate the more reasonable Democrats on this subject. If you need scientific facts for the convincing, I am available.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Fuel Cells Do Not Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN New says, "Fuel cell to provide clean power for downtown complex".
This is a deceptive announcement bordering on fraud.
The deception lies in the claims that "the building’s low energy use has carbon dioxide mitigating benefits equal to planting 180 acres of trees" and "the apartments will have 18 percent of the carbon footprint of a typical single-family home in Connecticut."
If the claimed energy saving results from improved heat insulation, the claim is legitimate, but the implication that most people will accept is that there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emission, which is not true. Carbon dioxide emission is insignificant from a geophysical viewpoint, but many people have grabbed this fad.
Fuel cells consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished. Many combinations of fuels and oxidants are possible. A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as its fuel.
Other fuels include hydrocarbons and alcohols. If hydrogen is the source fuel, it is generated externally usually from electrochemical decomposition of water, which requires fossil fuels to generate the electricity. If methane is used directly in the fuel cell, its direct by-product of use is carbon dioxide.
EIN New says, "Fuel cell to provide clean power for downtown complex".
This is a deceptive announcement bordering on fraud.
The deception lies in the claims that "the building’s low energy use has carbon dioxide mitigating benefits equal to planting 180 acres of trees" and "the apartments will have 18 percent of the carbon footprint of a typical single-family home in Connecticut."
If the claimed energy saving results from improved heat insulation, the claim is legitimate, but the implication that most people will accept is that there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emission, which is not true. Carbon dioxide emission is insignificant from a geophysical viewpoint, but many people have grabbed this fad.
Fuel cells consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished. Many combinations of fuels and oxidants are possible. A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as its fuel.
Other fuels include hydrocarbons and alcohols. If hydrogen is the source fuel, it is generated externally usually from electrochemical decomposition of water, which requires fossil fuels to generate the electricity. If methane is used directly in the fuel cell, its direct by-product of use is carbon dioxide.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Congress Must Control the Actions of the EPA
E-Mail to Congress:
Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a watchdog organization to protect the American public from hazardous chemicals, particularly from intentional or accidental synthesis by private industry. It passed the control of the agency to the Administration, where such control resides at present.
Because of the resent Administration's political perspective with respect to global warming, the EPA has forsaken its responsibility for objective analysis of "hazardous chemical" control and has extended the interpretation of "hazard" beyond a reasonable level for political reasons. It has defined carbon dioxide as a hazardous gas in the atmosphere, on which there is no scientific basis to support this decision. It further plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing combustion of fossil fuels, which will decimate an already
fragile economy.
EPA's your baby. You set up,, and you should control it. If you don't you will be aiding and abetting further destruction of the US economy to establish a world order, which is the obvious intention of the Obama Administration. Reference: Chemical and Engineering News April 5, 2010, page 9.
Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a watchdog organization to protect the American public from hazardous chemicals, particularly from intentional or accidental synthesis by private industry. It passed the control of the agency to the Administration, where such control resides at present.
Because of the resent Administration's political perspective with respect to global warming, the EPA has forsaken its responsibility for objective analysis of "hazardous chemical" control and has extended the interpretation of "hazard" beyond a reasonable level for political reasons. It has defined carbon dioxide as a hazardous gas in the atmosphere, on which there is no scientific basis to support this decision. It further plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing combustion of fossil fuels, which will decimate an already
fragile economy.
EPA's your baby. You set up,, and you should control it. If you don't you will be aiding and abetting further destruction of the US economy to establish a world order, which is the obvious intention of the Obama Administration. Reference: Chemical and Engineering News April 5, 2010, page 9.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Eliminating Use of Fossil Fuels Akin to Drinking Cyanide Laced Kool Aid
E-Mail to Congress:
The St. Petersburg Times says, "Grandparents, support clean energy for your grandchildren's sake". The article goes on to condemn carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant, which can only be controlled by eliminating use of fossil fuels.
This is an emotional appeal to a ridiculous undertaking. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.
The article reminds me of Rev. Jones convincing his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid in Guyana.
The St. Petersburg Times says, "Grandparents, support clean energy for your grandchildren's sake". The article goes on to condemn carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant, which can only be controlled by eliminating use of fossil fuels.
This is an emotional appeal to a ridiculous undertaking. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.
The article reminds me of Rev. Jones convincing his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid in Guyana.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Question the Motives of the National Academy of Sciences
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Climate-Change Study Points to Man's Role. The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects. (wsj.com).
We need to know how many of these elite American are unobjectively devoted to science.
This would be a good project for one of your assistants. A suggested procedure would be to make a list of the elite researchers closely associated with preparation of the 869-page report. Each of those researchers should then be searched for receipt of private or government grants for their research and receipt of other funds for advising Congressmen or other political figures on the advantages of climate control.
Scientific organizations were previously devoted to the advancement of science. More recently with government research grants, the scientific organizations have become more political.
EIN News says, "Climate-Change Study Points to Man's Role. The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects. (wsj.com).
We need to know how many of these elite American are unobjectively devoted to science.
This would be a good project for one of your assistants. A suggested procedure would be to make a list of the elite researchers closely associated with preparation of the 869-page report. Each of those researchers should then be searched for receipt of private or government grants for their research and receipt of other funds for advising Congressmen or other political figures on the advantages of climate control.
Scientific organizations were previously devoted to the advancement of science. More recently with government research grants, the scientific organizations have become more political.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Kill the Kerry/Lieberman Climate Bill Now
E-Mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows. The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects. After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. (nytimes.com)".
I strongly suggest that you not only vote against this bill if it ever comes to the floor, but that you now complain, protest, object, criticize, murmur, grumble, deplore, lament, whine, bewail repine, gripe, rail, remonstrate, and bellyache against it to a degree that all of your associates in the house understand the ridiculous nature of the proposal.
The major points of objection are:
1. The bill likely includes controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, which have NOT been proven detrimental to climate change. In addition, laboratory data show that carbon dioxide is not significantly more reflective to heat transfer, and increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, than other atmospheric gases.
2. Any bill which has 987 pages has many things to hide, which is the purpose of its large volume. Another example is the healthcare bill. Conversely, the new immigrant control law in Arizona required only 10 pages.
3. Reduction of oil imports is a prophecy. My prophecy is that such a law will not reduce oil imports, unless the bill contains restrictions directly controlling import volume. Many millions of cars and trucks depend upon oil for their operation. That technology has been developed over a period of 100 years and will not be easily changed. The recent catastrophe of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico also has its ancillary effect that states adjacent to large bodies of water now consider eliminating the possibility of oil drilling off their coasts.
4. The law will not create millions of new PRODUCTIVE energy-related jobs. Jobs must always be looked at from a productive quality viewpoint. If I have a job digging holes and then filling them in, I make no productive contribution in the operation. Since it is a job, for which I am paid, the people paying me must have some productive operation, on which to obtain the money to pay me. If they do not, the whole system, falls into decline.
I may now have a job producing diesel for a consuming public and that operation is productive for low-cost transportation of goods. If I switch to a job involving production of electricity by wind energy, the job has not increased, and the results of my work are considerably less productive than if I had remained in my diesel job.
EIN News says, "Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows. The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects. After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. (nytimes.com)".
I strongly suggest that you not only vote against this bill if it ever comes to the floor, but that you now complain, protest, object, criticize, murmur, grumble, deplore, lament, whine, bewail repine, gripe, rail, remonstrate, and bellyache against it to a degree that all of your associates in the house understand the ridiculous nature of the proposal.
The major points of objection are:
1. The bill likely includes controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, which have NOT been proven detrimental to climate change. In addition, laboratory data show that carbon dioxide is not significantly more reflective to heat transfer, and increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, than other atmospheric gases.
2. Any bill which has 987 pages has many things to hide, which is the purpose of its large volume. Another example is the healthcare bill. Conversely, the new immigrant control law in Arizona required only 10 pages.
3. Reduction of oil imports is a prophecy. My prophecy is that such a law will not reduce oil imports, unless the bill contains restrictions directly controlling import volume. Many millions of cars and trucks depend upon oil for their operation. That technology has been developed over a period of 100 years and will not be easily changed. The recent catastrophe of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico also has its ancillary effect that states adjacent to large bodies of water now consider eliminating the possibility of oil drilling off their coasts.
4. The law will not create millions of new PRODUCTIVE energy-related jobs. Jobs must always be looked at from a productive quality viewpoint. If I have a job digging holes and then filling them in, I make no productive contribution in the operation. Since it is a job, for which I am paid, the people paying me must have some productive operation, on which to obtain the money to pay me. If they do not, the whole system, falls into decline.
I may now have a job producing diesel for a consuming public and that operation is productive for low-cost transportation of goods. If I switch to a job involving production of electricity by wind energy, the job has not increased, and the results of my work are considerably less productive than if I had remained in my diesel job.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Primer on Greenhouses and Geo-Engineering
E-mail to Congress:
I presume your specialty is politics, and I know my specialty is science. It also seems that they meet occasionally, such that some scientific knowledge is necessary to make a reasonable political decision.
On that basis, I would like to give a little primer on greenhouses, since that is the current catchy word being used as the basis for climate control.
As you know, a greenhouse is traditionally a glass-ceiling building, generally used for growing plants. The glass ceiling allows sunlight to enter the building. Sunlight is composed of radiation of various wavelengths. It all passes through the glass ceiling on its way into the building. When it strikes a hard surface, such as concrete, growing plants and other paraphernalia in the building, some of entering radiation is converted to heat. That heat is unable to pass back out through the glass ceiling and results in an increased temperature within the building. This is not theory. It is observable fact.
The theory of global warming is that the 0.05% carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere acts in the same manner as the glass ceiling in a greenhouse, thereby leading to increased temperature of the whole earth, similar to the interior of the greenhouse. Consider that carbon dioxide is a gas, much like nitrogen and oxygen, which constitute most of atmospheric gases. Laboratory tests also show that the insulating effect of carbon dioxide to passage of heat is only slightly more than for nitrogen and oxygen. With these facts available, does it make sense to you that low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have a significant effect on climate, and particularly global warming?
The term geoengineering means manipulating the Earth's atmosphere by physical means. For example, one proposal to reduce the amount of solar radiation striking the earth is to place large amounts of sulfate particles in the atmosphere.
There was a recent climate conference in California. The major topic was geo-engineering, but the conferees agreed that geoengineering should only be applied after all aspects of carbon dioxide control have been instituted. The implication of this statement is that if carbon dioxide controls are not instituted, geo-engineering will be pushed.
The conferees also agreed that research should be continued. This is always a "motherhood" statement, which generally has merit, even though the conferees stand to profit most by federal funding of various research projects.
Another aspect, which was not mentioned by the conferees, is the military potential. If a specific country can control the climate of another country, it is only an indirect act of war, but could be more effective in establishing control then even a traditional military operation.
My bottom-line recommendations are for you to fight tooth and nail against any attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, support limited geochemical research for its potential application to military use, and avoid any research on geo-engineering for general attempts at climate control with respect to the theory of global warming.
I presume your specialty is politics, and I know my specialty is science. It also seems that they meet occasionally, such that some scientific knowledge is necessary to make a reasonable political decision.
On that basis, I would like to give a little primer on greenhouses, since that is the current catchy word being used as the basis for climate control.
As you know, a greenhouse is traditionally a glass-ceiling building, generally used for growing plants. The glass ceiling allows sunlight to enter the building. Sunlight is composed of radiation of various wavelengths. It all passes through the glass ceiling on its way into the building. When it strikes a hard surface, such as concrete, growing plants and other paraphernalia in the building, some of entering radiation is converted to heat. That heat is unable to pass back out through the glass ceiling and results in an increased temperature within the building. This is not theory. It is observable fact.
The theory of global warming is that the 0.05% carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere acts in the same manner as the glass ceiling in a greenhouse, thereby leading to increased temperature of the whole earth, similar to the interior of the greenhouse. Consider that carbon dioxide is a gas, much like nitrogen and oxygen, which constitute most of atmospheric gases. Laboratory tests also show that the insulating effect of carbon dioxide to passage of heat is only slightly more than for nitrogen and oxygen. With these facts available, does it make sense to you that low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have a significant effect on climate, and particularly global warming?
The term geoengineering means manipulating the Earth's atmosphere by physical means. For example, one proposal to reduce the amount of solar radiation striking the earth is to place large amounts of sulfate particles in the atmosphere.
There was a recent climate conference in California. The major topic was geo-engineering, but the conferees agreed that geoengineering should only be applied after all aspects of carbon dioxide control have been instituted. The implication of this statement is that if carbon dioxide controls are not instituted, geo-engineering will be pushed.
The conferees also agreed that research should be continued. This is always a "motherhood" statement, which generally has merit, even though the conferees stand to profit most by federal funding of various research projects.
Another aspect, which was not mentioned by the conferees, is the military potential. If a specific country can control the climate of another country, it is only an indirect act of war, but could be more effective in establishing control then even a traditional military operation.
My bottom-line recommendations are for you to fight tooth and nail against any attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, support limited geochemical research for its potential application to military use, and avoid any research on geo-engineering for general attempts at climate control with respect to the theory of global warming.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Preliminary Obama Administration Set-up for Geo-engineering
E-Mail to Congress:
Chemical and Engineering News had an article entitled, "Adjusting to Climate Change" in their March 22 issue.
The article says Pres. Obama has appointed an Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The task force is composed of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies. Notice that all representatives are government employees reporting to Pres. Obama. The objective of the task force is to "review existing policies, operations, and procedures that affect the federal government's ability to respond to and prepare for climate impacts". Another way to say this is the Pres. Obama doesn't want any discordant voices on the subject in his Administration. They must all speak the same party line.
Notice that this is also the Administration's fallback position, if Congress fails to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The Administration is presuming that under that circumstance, there will be climate change. Since they are now gearing up to handle such climate change, you can be sure that they will find climate change to regulate, whether it exists or not. This is the first aspect of geo-engineering, which we will hear more about.
Chemical and Engineering News had an article entitled, "Adjusting to Climate Change" in their March 22 issue.
The article says Pres. Obama has appointed an Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The task force is composed of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies. Notice that all representatives are government employees reporting to Pres. Obama. The objective of the task force is to "review existing policies, operations, and procedures that affect the federal government's ability to respond to and prepare for climate impacts". Another way to say this is the Pres. Obama doesn't want any discordant voices on the subject in his Administration. They must all speak the same party line.
Notice that this is also the Administration's fallback position, if Congress fails to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The Administration is presuming that under that circumstance, there will be climate change. Since they are now gearing up to handle such climate change, you can be sure that they will find climate change to regulate, whether it exists or not. This is the first aspect of geo-engineering, which we will hear more about.
Friday, April 9, 2010
World Bank on Climate Control
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "World Bank Backs Loan for South Africa Power Station. The World Bank has approved a $3.75 billion loan for a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa, despite environmental concerns. (bbc.co.uk)".
Without further details, it appears that the Administration of the World Bank has made a proper and perhaps a landmark decision. We don't know exactly what the term "despite environmental concerns" means, but it is probable that the huge plant will not have the sequestration of carbon dioxide.
If this is true, World Bank Administration apparently believes that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not lead to significant global warming, at least two of the extent that it is more important then South Africa's GDP.
Since this is apparently true for South Africa, would it not also be true for the US? This again brings us back to the fact that consideration of carbon dioxide sequestration and Cap & Trade is only another tax gimmick is not related to any environmental factors.
With this consideration, I again urge you to vote against any Cap & Trade regulations or anything related to carbon dioxide sequestration. I also urge you to work vigorously against the whole idea, and particularly against the EPA, which appears to be following Pres. Obama's directives, even though EPA was established by Congress.
EIN News says, "World Bank Backs Loan for South Africa Power Station. The World Bank has approved a $3.75 billion loan for a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa, despite environmental concerns. (bbc.co.uk)".
Without further details, it appears that the Administration of the World Bank has made a proper and perhaps a landmark decision. We don't know exactly what the term "despite environmental concerns" means, but it is probable that the huge plant will not have the sequestration of carbon dioxide.
If this is true, World Bank Administration apparently believes that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not lead to significant global warming, at least two of the extent that it is more important then South Africa's GDP.
Since this is apparently true for South Africa, would it not also be true for the US? This again brings us back to the fact that consideration of carbon dioxide sequestration and Cap & Trade is only another tax gimmick is not related to any environmental factors.
With this consideration, I again urge you to vote against any Cap & Trade regulations or anything related to carbon dioxide sequestration. I also urge you to work vigorously against the whole idea, and particularly against the EPA, which appears to be following Pres. Obama's directives, even though EPA was established by Congress.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Hot Time in Southern California
e-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "California's Cap-Trade Law Faces Fall Ballot Challenge. The energy industry and an antitax group are challenging California's plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the effort would lead to job losses and raise energy prices if it goes into effect in 2012. (wsj.com)".
It continues to amaze me how ridiculous the California leadership can be. They have one of the highest unemployment areas in the country, are tremendously in debt, such that they have to offer I/O/Us instead of cash to pay their bills. Yet they continue to voluntarily swamp themselves with unnecessary unemployment increases and increasing debt.
Let's repeat the facts. When they say greenhouse gases, they mean carbon dioxide. However, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. It is slightly more resistant to the passage and loss of heat to the stratosphere than other atmospheric gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen, but its concentration is so low (0.05%) that its effect on global warming is insignificant.
Perhaps the Californian leadership is looking more at Cap & Trade for the tax money it might bring in on the basis of fraud and deceit. The tax money would come from fossil burning electricity plants, who would pass along that cost to consumers. The net effect will be a general public tax on electrical energy. People out of work, can hardly pay their rent and food bills. It's going to be awfully hot for those living south of San Francisco this summer, when the air conditioning bills would be too high to buy the service.
EIN News says, "California's Cap-Trade Law Faces Fall Ballot Challenge. The energy industry and an antitax group are challenging California's plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the effort would lead to job losses and raise energy prices if it goes into effect in 2012. (wsj.com)".
It continues to amaze me how ridiculous the California leadership can be. They have one of the highest unemployment areas in the country, are tremendously in debt, such that they have to offer I/O/Us instead of cash to pay their bills. Yet they continue to voluntarily swamp themselves with unnecessary unemployment increases and increasing debt.
Let's repeat the facts. When they say greenhouse gases, they mean carbon dioxide. However, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. It is slightly more resistant to the passage and loss of heat to the stratosphere than other atmospheric gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen, but its concentration is so low (0.05%) that its effect on global warming is insignificant.
Perhaps the Californian leadership is looking more at Cap & Trade for the tax money it might bring in on the basis of fraud and deceit. The tax money would come from fossil burning electricity plants, who would pass along that cost to consumers. The net effect will be a general public tax on electrical energy. People out of work, can hardly pay their rent and food bills. It's going to be awfully hot for those living south of San Francisco this summer, when the air conditioning bills would be too high to buy the service.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
UN Needs Climate Control to Establish World Government
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Copenhagen Accord Climate Pledges Too Weak, UN Says, More than 110 countries have signed up to the Copenhagen Accord on fighting global warming but the United Nations said that their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions were insufficient. (reuters.com)".
As usual, we have to consider motivations in order to properly interpret such comments.
The objective of the UN Administration is to develop a world government, in which they are in charge. To do this effectively, it is necessary to reduce the power of developed countries. This is similar to the program of the Obama Administration, which daily reduces the power of its citizens,
One of the most effective ways to reduce the power of a developed country is to reduce its reliance on energy. The UN wants atmospheric carbon dioxide control, because this automatically reduces use of fossil fuels, which finally reduces a country's Gross Domestic Production (GDP).
If you want to help the UN establish a world government, you need to vote for as many hindrances to the use of fossil fuels as possible. However, I believe you are interested in maintaining maximum financial power of the US and its citizens. Therefore, I suggest you stay away from climate change legislation, as if it were the plague. In addition, I believe you should take an active part in killing it in the Congress. You can do this through political appeal to maintain US supremacy and use scientific support showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming.
If you really want to hinder the US attempt to establish world government, you will also need to fight their attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions, since this is their most powerful weapon in reducing the US to a Third World country.
EIN News says, "Copenhagen Accord Climate Pledges Too Weak, UN Says, More than 110 countries have signed up to the Copenhagen Accord on fighting global warming but the United Nations said that their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions were insufficient. (reuters.com)".
As usual, we have to consider motivations in order to properly interpret such comments.
The objective of the UN Administration is to develop a world government, in which they are in charge. To do this effectively, it is necessary to reduce the power of developed countries. This is similar to the program of the Obama Administration, which daily reduces the power of its citizens,
One of the most effective ways to reduce the power of a developed country is to reduce its reliance on energy. The UN wants atmospheric carbon dioxide control, because this automatically reduces use of fossil fuels, which finally reduces a country's Gross Domestic Production (GDP).
If you want to help the UN establish a world government, you need to vote for as many hindrances to the use of fossil fuels as possible. However, I believe you are interested in maintaining maximum financial power of the US and its citizens. Therefore, I suggest you stay away from climate change legislation, as if it were the plague. In addition, I believe you should take an active part in killing it in the Congress. You can do this through political appeal to maintain US supremacy and use scientific support showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming.
If you really want to hinder the US attempt to establish world government, you will also need to fight their attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions, since this is their most powerful weapon in reducing the US to a Third World country.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
EPA Slowing Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Permits
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "EPA Delays Plants' Pollution Permits. The Environmental Protection Agency said that it would not require power plants or other industrial sites to obtain federal pollution permits for emitting greenhouse gases before next January. (nytimes.com)".
We may be making a little progress. The EPA seems to be stretching out the time to convert the US to a Third World country. They still seem to have not given up the idea that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas nor a pollutant. As long as they retain this position, which is based on a desire to reorganize world energy and financial capability, rather than scientific facts, we are in trouble. Their motivations completely ignore the fact that carbon dioxide does not impede passage of heat anymore significantly than other major atmospheric gases. The fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is so low compared to nitrogen and oxygen, makes the whole proposal of anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide a joke.
EIN News says, "EPA Delays Plants' Pollution Permits. The Environmental Protection Agency said that it would not require power plants or other industrial sites to obtain federal pollution permits for emitting greenhouse gases before next January. (nytimes.com)".
We may be making a little progress. The EPA seems to be stretching out the time to convert the US to a Third World country. They still seem to have not given up the idea that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas nor a pollutant. As long as they retain this position, which is based on a desire to reorganize world energy and financial capability, rather than scientific facts, we are in trouble. Their motivations completely ignore the fact that carbon dioxide does not impede passage of heat anymore significantly than other major atmospheric gases. The fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is so low compared to nitrogen and oxygen, makes the whole proposal of anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide a joke.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Support for Cap & Trade tax dying But for Wrong Reasons
E-mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "'Cap and Trade' Loses Its Standing As Energy Policy of Choice. Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change. Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it "cap and tax," and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington. (nytimes.com)".
That's good, as far as it goes. However, it should be noted that by implication, climate change needs to be tackled, but not by Cap & Trade. That depresses me, because of the apparent continued belief that carbon dioxide is an air contaminant, which contributes significantly to global warming. I have shown previously that heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than heat transmission through oxygen and nitrogen, which are major components of the atmosphere. In addition, the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to those of the gases eliminates any possible effect it could have.
I suppose it is very difficult to allay a public fear by use of facts. The myth of the existence of dragons has been around for a very long time, and there are presumably many people who still believe in their existence. A Cap & Trade tax, on the myth of carbon dioxide significantly influencing climate change, would be equivalent to government saying all citizens must pay $1000 so that we can keep away the dragons.
EIN News says, "'Cap and Trade' Loses Its Standing As Energy Policy of Choice. Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change. Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it "cap and tax," and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington. (nytimes.com)".
That's good, as far as it goes. However, it should be noted that by implication, climate change needs to be tackled, but not by Cap & Trade. That depresses me, because of the apparent continued belief that carbon dioxide is an air contaminant, which contributes significantly to global warming. I have shown previously that heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than heat transmission through oxygen and nitrogen, which are major components of the atmosphere. In addition, the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to those of the gases eliminates any possible effect it could have.
I suppose it is very difficult to allay a public fear by use of facts. The myth of the existence of dragons has been around for a very long time, and there are presumably many people who still believe in their existence. A Cap & Trade tax, on the myth of carbon dioxide significantly influencing climate change, would be equivalent to government saying all citizens must pay $1000 so that we can keep away the dragons.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Democrats Last Gasp on Climate Control
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Democrats Look to Industry for Help in Climate Bill. Some lawmakers have come to accept the political reality that businesses will play a key role in shaping global warming legislation. (latimes.com)".
This is a wrong premise. Industry is a collection of companies, generally with manufacturing capability as opposed to service companies, such as insurance. These companies have a prime desire to stay in business, and they will do so only as long as they are profitable. To them profitability means having money left over after paying all of their expenses, such as manufacturing costs, sales and administrative expenses, including good salaries and bonuses for management. They are not in the business of social reform and generally not climate change. They recognize that there are certain government edicts, especially government money grants, which could be favorable to their bottom line. They are generally not much interested in the scientific or political justification for such grants, only that they receive them.
This is not to say that industry representatives do not have some good ideas which could be favorable to the economy and our society in general. Representatives and Senators should listen to them, bearing in mind that those comments are based upon the desire for personal advantage. In the final analysis, legislators should be making their decisions for the good of the country.
As time passes, the fear of climate change has become less relevant to the general public. In fact, climate change has achieved the status where it is a butt of many jokes. This situation can be very dangerous for climate change proponents, especially in government, where huge tax inflows were anticipated from Cap & Trade and ancillary measures.
The Democrat approach to soliciting aid from industry is a last gasp measure. They will get some support from opportunists, but they are working against themselves. Recall that Pres. Obama, the "prime Democrat" has generally been the denouncing private industry. All of a sudden government needs private industry support? Isn't this rather two-faced?
EIN News says, "Democrats Look to Industry for Help in Climate Bill. Some lawmakers have come to accept the political reality that businesses will play a key role in shaping global warming legislation. (latimes.com)".
This is a wrong premise. Industry is a collection of companies, generally with manufacturing capability as opposed to service companies, such as insurance. These companies have a prime desire to stay in business, and they will do so only as long as they are profitable. To them profitability means having money left over after paying all of their expenses, such as manufacturing costs, sales and administrative expenses, including good salaries and bonuses for management. They are not in the business of social reform and generally not climate change. They recognize that there are certain government edicts, especially government money grants, which could be favorable to their bottom line. They are generally not much interested in the scientific or political justification for such grants, only that they receive them.
This is not to say that industry representatives do not have some good ideas which could be favorable to the economy and our society in general. Representatives and Senators should listen to them, bearing in mind that those comments are based upon the desire for personal advantage. In the final analysis, legislators should be making their decisions for the good of the country.
As time passes, the fear of climate change has become less relevant to the general public. In fact, climate change has achieved the status where it is a butt of many jokes. This situation can be very dangerous for climate change proponents, especially in government, where huge tax inflows were anticipated from Cap & Trade and ancillary measures.
The Democrat approach to soliciting aid from industry is a last gasp measure. They will get some support from opportunists, but they are working against themselves. Recall that Pres. Obama, the "prime Democrat" has generally been the denouncing private industry. All of a sudden government needs private industry support? Isn't this rather two-faced?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Confusing Oil Recovery with Cap & Trade
E-mail to Congress:
Randy,
EIN News says, "Pairing Oil Recovery With Carbon Capture a Win-Win for U.S., Report Says. Enhanced oil recovery -- a technique that stimulates aging wells -- combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) could slash U.S. petroleum imports if there is a strong price on carbon, according to a report commissioned by an environmental group. (nytimes.com)".
Without even having read the report, I can tell you it is crazy logic.
Enhanced oil recovery, which is a practice that has been going on for many years, is certainly a good thing. Basically, it involves chemical and physical treatment of old wells to increase the production rate of those wells.
This has nothing to do with capturing and storing carbon dioxide from burning coal in electric utilities.
Why not say that a win-win situation is to treat old oil wells for greater production and have everybody get a haircut every two weeks.
Randy,
EIN News says, "Pairing Oil Recovery With Carbon Capture a Win-Win for U.S., Report Says. Enhanced oil recovery -- a technique that stimulates aging wells -- combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) could slash U.S. petroleum imports if there is a strong price on carbon, according to a report commissioned by an environmental group. (nytimes.com)".
Without even having read the report, I can tell you it is crazy logic.
Enhanced oil recovery, which is a practice that has been going on for many years, is certainly a good thing. Basically, it involves chemical and physical treatment of old wells to increase the production rate of those wells.
This has nothing to do with capturing and storing carbon dioxide from burning coal in electric utilities.
Why not say that a win-win situation is to treat old oil wells for greater production and have everybody get a haircut every two weeks.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Congress Must Restrain the EPA on Climate Change
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Lawmakers Move to Restrain EPA on Climate Change. As climate change legislation stalled in the Senate, the Obama administration noted that it had a workable -- although admittedly unwieldy -- Plan B. If Congress wouldn't cap U.S. emissions, officials said, the Environmental Protection Agency would do it instead. (washingtonpost.com)".
Good move, if you are really restraining EPA on climate change. Up to now EPA has been following the dictates of the Obama Administration. They're both trying to control something they know nothing about. The only thing that is certain is that it will cost an additional tremendous amount of money, if they continue with the controls.
Congress originally set up the EPA. As Bill Cosby said to his son, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out". President Obama has been usurping your power bit by bit. This may be a place to set the mark in the dirt. Tell the EPA what they must do. That is, not be a political activist for the Obama Administration, but rather get back to scientific investigations and controls for the benefit of the US population.
EIN News says, "Lawmakers Move to Restrain EPA on Climate Change. As climate change legislation stalled in the Senate, the Obama administration noted that it had a workable -- although admittedly unwieldy -- Plan B. If Congress wouldn't cap U.S. emissions, officials said, the Environmental Protection Agency would do it instead. (washingtonpost.com)".
Good move, if you are really restraining EPA on climate change. Up to now EPA has been following the dictates of the Obama Administration. They're both trying to control something they know nothing about. The only thing that is certain is that it will cost an additional tremendous amount of money, if they continue with the controls.
Congress originally set up the EPA. As Bill Cosby said to his son, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out". President Obama has been usurping your power bit by bit. This may be a place to set the mark in the dirt. Tell the EPA what they must do. That is, not be a political activist for the Obama Administration, but rather get back to scientific investigations and controls for the benefit of the US population.
EPA Not All Bad
E-mail to Congress:
I have previously taken a hard attitude against the EPA, because of their unrealistic position of considering carbon dioxide as an undesirable component of the atmosphere. This position is apparently based upon the basic philosophy and promotions of East Anglia University. Those promotions are loaded with sophisticated intellectual jargon and the invention of new terms, such as "greenhouse gas" and global warming. The EPA has apparently swallowed all of these claims, without any scientific consideration, such as relative reflectivity of carbon dioxide toward infrared compared to other atmospheric gases and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I previously had some respect for the scientific integrity of the EPA, but I see that they are now swayed unrealistically by the opportunistic, Marxist opinions of their boss, Pres. Obama.
But to give the Devil it's due, there is an article in the March 1 issue of C&EN entitled, "EPA Revisits Atrazine". My hat is off to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning the revisit. Atrazine is a widely used herbicide and traces from runoff have appeared in streams and groundwater. The EPA originally declared Atrazine "safe" with respect to expected human exposure concentrations. However, various other data on birth defects, premature births and low human birth weights have been developing.
The key point is that the EPA is now restudying Atrazine human toxicity at present usage levels, and is including in the study a first attempt at incorporating epidemiological data. This is rather difficult, as the C&EN article indicates, but EPA plans to persist. That being the case with respect to Atrazine, why do we glibly accept the claptrap with respect to the claimed dangers of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
I have previously taken a hard attitude against the EPA, because of their unrealistic position of considering carbon dioxide as an undesirable component of the atmosphere. This position is apparently based upon the basic philosophy and promotions of East Anglia University. Those promotions are loaded with sophisticated intellectual jargon and the invention of new terms, such as "greenhouse gas" and global warming. The EPA has apparently swallowed all of these claims, without any scientific consideration, such as relative reflectivity of carbon dioxide toward infrared compared to other atmospheric gases and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I previously had some respect for the scientific integrity of the EPA, but I see that they are now swayed unrealistically by the opportunistic, Marxist opinions of their boss, Pres. Obama.
But to give the Devil it's due, there is an article in the March 1 issue of C&EN entitled, "EPA Revisits Atrazine". My hat is off to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning the revisit. Atrazine is a widely used herbicide and traces from runoff have appeared in streams and groundwater. The EPA originally declared Atrazine "safe" with respect to expected human exposure concentrations. However, various other data on birth defects, premature births and low human birth weights have been developing.
The key point is that the EPA is now restudying Atrazine human toxicity at present usage levels, and is including in the study a first attempt at incorporating epidemiological data. This is rather difficult, as the C&EN article indicates, but EPA plans to persist. That being the case with respect to Atrazine, why do we glibly accept the claptrap with respect to the claimed dangers of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Money for Status and Toys
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Cap-and-Trade Loses Lots of Steam As Senators Negotiate. The trio of senators negotiating a broad climate change and energy bill appears likely to abandon plans for an economywide cap on greenhouse gas emissions in favor of a sector-based approach that is winning cautious support by oil and gas industry leaders. (chron.com)".
There is a very interesting article entitled, "Seeking Funds for Geo-Engineering" by Cheryl Hogue in the February 22nd Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Cheryl works for Editor-In-Chief Rudy Baum. Rudy has a BA in Chemistry from Duke and did some part-time work in medical school. He has swallowed the hoax of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations radically affecting climate change. As far as I can tell, he has never given justification for his opinion, although he and his staff continue to expound the need for climate control. I have previously claimed that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have little to no affect on climate change, because carbon dioxide is not significantly more insulating than other atmospheric gases and its concentration is very low. No one has ever challenged my position on this reasoning. Conversely, C&EN and others have continued to promote fear through their apparently unjustified opinion that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a strong effect on climate change.
I strongly suspect that many scientists who have taken up the flag on climate change have done so on the basis of personal profit. It is easy to accept the questionable teachings of the East Anglia group, who invented the terms global warming and greenhouse gas, if there is an economic advantage to do so.
In her article, Cheryl Hogue assumes that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affecting climate change is an accepted fact. On that basis, she goes on to record various technical suggestions for control of carbon dioxide, and categorizes this as "Geo-engineering". The next big jump is that she implies present funding for geo-engineering results from a an insufficient "hodgepodge of private money". She doesn't say how much that is but does say it includes $2.5 million of federal money. She regards this is picayune and is pushing for public funds. Note that any time a project requires substantial money, "public funds" must always come into the picture.
Philip Rasch is chief climate scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories Atmospheric Science and Global Change Division. High sounding title but in fact he is an employee of a minor government bureaucracy. Rasch says he wants $10 to 50 million for research in this area. He then goes on to say that $22 BILLION would not be unreasonable Why? So he can be having a bigger, more important position in government circles, or does he have a scientific motive to obtain facts? What kind of research would he be pursuing? Would it be to determine whether atmospheric carbon dioxide has a real effect on climate change, or will he start from the presumption that it does and wander into "never never land"?
What are some of the projects, which other geo-engineers would like to squander public funds on? Prof. Lackner of Columbia wants a program to reduce the cost of "mineral sequestration" from $100 per ton of CO2 to $10. Why would we want to do that? Have we really established that that is a necessary objective? I suppose a project like this would be good for Lackner. He would have the prestige of operating a big project, and he could obtain a nice cut of the funds for his personal use.
David Keith is a professor at the University of Calgary. He wants to interfere with how much radiation is captured by the Earth through injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to act as insulators for incoming radiation. A nutty idea? Yes, but believable by many ignorant people, including Congressman. That's not to say that ignorance of congressmen is a derogatory statement, but rather that most congressmen do not have a basic understanding of science and the technology of engineering.
Prof. Jackson of Duke and Prof. Keith recommend the formation of a governmental interagency working group on geo-engineering. It would be analogous to the US Global Change Research program, an interagency group focused on climate-change research, apparently already established. Why establish such groups? The purpose is obvious. The more bureaucracy we have, the more money can be allocated to the individual bureaus from the federal budget and thus trickle down to private (usually University) interests, allowing funds for more toys.
EIN News says, "Cap-and-Trade Loses Lots of Steam As Senators Negotiate. The trio of senators negotiating a broad climate change and energy bill appears likely to abandon plans for an economywide cap on greenhouse gas emissions in favor of a sector-based approach that is winning cautious support by oil and gas industry leaders. (chron.com)".
There is a very interesting article entitled, "Seeking Funds for Geo-Engineering" by Cheryl Hogue in the February 22nd Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Cheryl works for Editor-In-Chief Rudy Baum. Rudy has a BA in Chemistry from Duke and did some part-time work in medical school. He has swallowed the hoax of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations radically affecting climate change. As far as I can tell, he has never given justification for his opinion, although he and his staff continue to expound the need for climate control. I have previously claimed that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have little to no affect on climate change, because carbon dioxide is not significantly more insulating than other atmospheric gases and its concentration is very low. No one has ever challenged my position on this reasoning. Conversely, C&EN and others have continued to promote fear through their apparently unjustified opinion that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a strong effect on climate change.
I strongly suspect that many scientists who have taken up the flag on climate change have done so on the basis of personal profit. It is easy to accept the questionable teachings of the East Anglia group, who invented the terms global warming and greenhouse gas, if there is an economic advantage to do so.
In her article, Cheryl Hogue assumes that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affecting climate change is an accepted fact. On that basis, she goes on to record various technical suggestions for control of carbon dioxide, and categorizes this as "Geo-engineering". The next big jump is that she implies present funding for geo-engineering results from a an insufficient "hodgepodge of private money". She doesn't say how much that is but does say it includes $2.5 million of federal money. She regards this is picayune and is pushing for public funds. Note that any time a project requires substantial money, "public funds" must always come into the picture.
Philip Rasch is chief climate scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories Atmospheric Science and Global Change Division. High sounding title but in fact he is an employee of a minor government bureaucracy. Rasch says he wants $10 to 50 million for research in this area. He then goes on to say that $22 BILLION would not be unreasonable Why? So he can be having a bigger, more important position in government circles, or does he have a scientific motive to obtain facts? What kind of research would he be pursuing? Would it be to determine whether atmospheric carbon dioxide has a real effect on climate change, or will he start from the presumption that it does and wander into "never never land"?
What are some of the projects, which other geo-engineers would like to squander public funds on? Prof. Lackner of Columbia wants a program to reduce the cost of "mineral sequestration" from $100 per ton of CO2 to $10. Why would we want to do that? Have we really established that that is a necessary objective? I suppose a project like this would be good for Lackner. He would have the prestige of operating a big project, and he could obtain a nice cut of the funds for his personal use.
David Keith is a professor at the University of Calgary. He wants to interfere with how much radiation is captured by the Earth through injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to act as insulators for incoming radiation. A nutty idea? Yes, but believable by many ignorant people, including Congressman. That's not to say that ignorance of congressmen is a derogatory statement, but rather that most congressmen do not have a basic understanding of science and the technology of engineering.
Prof. Jackson of Duke and Prof. Keith recommend the formation of a governmental interagency working group on geo-engineering. It would be analogous to the US Global Change Research program, an interagency group focused on climate-change research, apparently already established. Why establish such groups? The purpose is obvious. The more bureaucracy we have, the more money can be allocated to the individual bureaus from the federal budget and thus trickle down to private (usually University) interests, allowing funds for more toys.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Another Maneuver to Push the Tax of Cap & Trade
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Proposal Calls for Emissions Study With New Government-Approved Projects. The Obama administration proposed rules that could affect construction of coal-fired power plants and other government-approved projects that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. (latimes.com)".
This is another sneaky way to work into Cap & Trade, which is nothing more than another tax increase based upon myth. Why not another tax increase to pay for a program to keep the boogie man away from the door?
EIN News says, "Proposal Calls for Emissions Study With New Government-Approved Projects. The Obama administration proposed rules that could affect construction of coal-fired power plants and other government-approved projects that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. (latimes.com)".
This is another sneaky way to work into Cap & Trade, which is nothing more than another tax increase based upon myth. Why not another tax increase to pay for a program to keep the boogie man away from the door?
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Was Global Warming Responsible for Cutting Drought Conditions in the US from 50% to 7%?
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Dramatic Drought Turnaround; Farmers and Communities Are Relieved As Much of the U.S. Emerges From a Deep Drought. Only about 7 percent of the U.S. is experiencing drought conditions, down from a peak of close to 50 percent in August 2007. Only small parts of Hawaii are currently under "extreme" drought conditions. (abcnews.go.com)".
The latest jargon from the climate-change activists is that global warming, which is attributed to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, has contributed to unsettled weather conditions. They say that the spells of snow ice i and general cold weather in the US this winter are characteristic of what we can expect, but it will be variable. Personally I consider this so much hogwash.
On the other hand since we have already been indoctrinated into dealing in fantasy, let's play along for the ride.
If drought conditions in the US have been cut from 50% to 7%, and this is caused by global warming, that's good! I am now in favor of the results of global warming. I don't believe in the concept. The science is all wrong, with respect to what the advocates claim. But who am I to argue with favorable results. Hooray for global warming!
EIN News says, "Dramatic Drought Turnaround; Farmers and Communities Are Relieved As Much of the U.S. Emerges From a Deep Drought. Only about 7 percent of the U.S. is experiencing drought conditions, down from a peak of close to 50 percent in August 2007. Only small parts of Hawaii are currently under "extreme" drought conditions. (abcnews.go.com)".
The latest jargon from the climate-change activists is that global warming, which is attributed to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, has contributed to unsettled weather conditions. They say that the spells of snow ice i and general cold weather in the US this winter are characteristic of what we can expect, but it will be variable. Personally I consider this so much hogwash.
On the other hand since we have already been indoctrinated into dealing in fantasy, let's play along for the ride.
If drought conditions in the US have been cut from 50% to 7%, and this is caused by global warming, that's good! I am now in favor of the results of global warming. I don't believe in the concept. The science is all wrong, with respect to what the advocates claim. But who am I to argue with favorable results. Hooray for global warming!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Careful on Energy Giants Lobbying for Cap & Trade
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Energy Giants Pushing for Cap-and-Trade? The U.S. Senate's stalled climate bill is getting a last big push from an unlikely ally -- a group of energy companies who say a carbon market will help them get financing for the next generation of energy production. (reuters.com)".
Careful! Do not be deceived into thinking that the position of any of these energy companies is related to carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and global warming. All private companies operate on the basis of supplying to customers a product in the form they desire. A company generally has no reticence of taking government money for any kind of boondoggling operation, provided the money helps its bottom line and maintains the companies financial viability in the marketplace. It is not a company's job to decide what customers or government should have. A company merely needs to supply the product or service, once the public and government decide the requirements.
As a government leader, it is your job to decide what is logical and practical for the society.
EIN News says, "Energy Giants Pushing for Cap-and-Trade? The U.S. Senate's stalled climate bill is getting a last big push from an unlikely ally -- a group of energy companies who say a carbon market will help them get financing for the next generation of energy production. (reuters.com)".
Careful! Do not be deceived into thinking that the position of any of these energy companies is related to carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and global warming. All private companies operate on the basis of supplying to customers a product in the form they desire. A company generally has no reticence of taking government money for any kind of boondoggling operation, provided the money helps its bottom line and maintains the companies financial viability in the marketplace. It is not a company's job to decide what customers or government should have. A company merely needs to supply the product or service, once the public and government decide the requirements.
As a government leader, it is your job to decide what is logical and practical for the society.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Global Cooling
E-mail to Congress:
So God said, "You think you have global warming? Let me show you some global cooling!
So God said, "You think you have global warming? Let me show you some global cooling!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sneaky Climate Change Amendments
E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Democrats Study Plan B for Energy, Climate Change. The Obama administration's already dim hopes of passing sweeping energy and climate change legislation darkened further with last week's Republican victory in the special election to fill a Senate seat from Massachusetts. Now Democratic leaders eager to cap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming are mulling a possible Plan B: tacking "clean energy" measures onto a job-creation package and following that up with an "energy-only" bill that doesn't contain a specific plan for combating climate change. (chron.com)".
Please be on your toes watching for the Democratic tricky maneuvers. Stupidity is hard to stamp out. The only positive thing I can say about Democrats is they are persistent. Unfortunately, their persistence is usually directed on the wrong objectives.
Climate change legislation, including various manifestations of Cap & trade, declaring carbon dioxide a noxious gas, and others must be eliminated. If possible it should be replaced by a bill which demands a two-third majority in both the House and the Senate before it can ever again be considered.
The more immediate problem is the Democrats' plan to add climate change amendments to more favorable bills, such as job-creation. It will be necessary to combat that with perseverance demanding that any bill involving climate change or job-creation must be free-standing.
EIN News says, "Democrats Study Plan B for Energy, Climate Change. The Obama administration's already dim hopes of passing sweeping energy and climate change legislation darkened further with last week's Republican victory in the special election to fill a Senate seat from Massachusetts. Now Democratic leaders eager to cap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming are mulling a possible Plan B: tacking "clean energy" measures onto a job-creation package and following that up with an "energy-only" bill that doesn't contain a specific plan for combating climate change. (chron.com)".
Please be on your toes watching for the Democratic tricky maneuvers. Stupidity is hard to stamp out. The only positive thing I can say about Democrats is they are persistent. Unfortunately, their persistence is usually directed on the wrong objectives.
Climate change legislation, including various manifestations of Cap & trade, declaring carbon dioxide a noxious gas, and others must be eliminated. If possible it should be replaced by a bill which demands a two-third majority in both the House and the Senate before it can ever again be considered.
The more immediate problem is the Democrats' plan to add climate change amendments to more favorable bills, such as job-creation. It will be necessary to combat that with perseverance demanding that any bill involving climate change or job-creation must be free-standing.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Discredit EPA on Global Warming
E-mail to Senators Murkowski and Lincoln:
EIN News says, "Senator Offers Measure to Overturn EPA Greenhouse-Gas Effort. Sen. Lisa Murkowski offered Thursday a measure to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, putting a new edge on a conflict over environmental policy. The Republican lawmaker offered a "resolution of disapproval" after picking up support from lawmakers including Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), who is high on the list of Democrats at risk of losing their seats in the November midterm elections. The resolution would block an EPA finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public, a legal pre-requisite for regulating. (wsj.com)".
Congratulations!
I speak as a scientist. All gases in the atmosphere show a greenhouse effect. Without them the Earth would be unlivably cold.
atmosphere and its coefficient of the transmission is such that it has little to no effect on Earth temperatures. Know what it is the concentration were doubled.
The EPA and many others have been embarked on a political maneuver, without basis of scientific fact.
EIN News says, "Senator Offers Measure to Overturn EPA Greenhouse-Gas Effort. Sen. Lisa Murkowski offered Thursday a measure to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, putting a new edge on a conflict over environmental policy. The Republican lawmaker offered a "resolution of disapproval" after picking up support from lawmakers including Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), who is high on the list of Democrats at risk of losing their seats in the November midterm elections. The resolution would block an EPA finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public, a legal pre-requisite for regulating. (wsj.com)".
Congratulations!
I speak as a scientist. All gases in the atmosphere show a greenhouse effect. Without them the Earth would be unlivably cold.
atmosphere and its coefficient of the transmission is such that it has little to no effect on Earth temperatures. Know what it is the concentration were doubled.
The EPA and many others have been embarked on a political maneuver, without basis of scientific fact.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Another Nail in the Global Warming Coffin
E-mail the Congress:
EIN News says, "Largest U.S. Farm Group Rallies Against Climate Bill. The largest U.S. farm group will oppose aggressively "misguided" climate legislation pending in Congress and fight animal rights activists, said American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman on Sunday. In a speech opening the four-day AFBF convention, Stallman said American farmers and ranchers "must aggressively respond to extremists" and "misguided, activist-driven regulation (reuters.com)".
Where have these people been up to now? Perhaps they finally see that the ship is sinking. Most likely they have been sitting on their haunches, because they have been receiving subsidies and did not want to shake up the goose laying the golden eggs. But, the goose is dying, and we should all be giving a last-minute effort to keep it alive.
In spite of that negative comment, hooray for the American Farm Bureau Federation and particularly Bob Stallman! We can use all the help we can get in trying to wake up Congress to the terrible myth of carbon dioxide in global warming and the need for its control.
EIN News says, "Largest U.S. Farm Group Rallies Against Climate Bill. The largest U.S. farm group will oppose aggressively "misguided" climate legislation pending in Congress and fight animal rights activists, said American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman on Sunday. In a speech opening the four-day AFBF convention, Stallman said American farmers and ranchers "must aggressively respond to extremists" and "misguided, activist-driven regulation (reuters.com)".
Where have these people been up to now? Perhaps they finally see that the ship is sinking. Most likely they have been sitting on their haunches, because they have been receiving subsidies and did not want to shake up the goose laying the golden eggs. But, the goose is dying, and we should all be giving a last-minute effort to keep it alive.
In spite of that negative comment, hooray for the American Farm Bureau Federation and particularly Bob Stallman! We can use all the help we can get in trying to wake up Congress to the terrible myth of carbon dioxide in global warming and the need for its control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
