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.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
