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.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
