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.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
