Global Warming on Permafrost

The United Nations Environment Program has a new fear for us. It reports that human-caused climate change will lead to thawing of the permafrost with generation of "greenhouse gases" carbon dioxide and methane. That in turn will lead to more thawing and more generation of carbon dioxide and methane. The report couples this with the assertion that carbon dioxide and methane are the basic cause of global warming.

Let's look at this from a practical scientific point of view. First of all, temperature recordings show that the average Global temperature has increased over the past few decades, and this has been designated as Global Warming. There is also no doubt that in the combustion of fossil fuels, man has generated more heat. However, there has been no study of quantification, and the likelihood that increased heat from fossil fuel burning is insignificant compared to variations in heat supplied by the sun.

Methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. That is, they inhibit the passage of heat from the year's surface to outer space. However, the other major gases of the atmosphere do the same thing, which is why we have relatively small differences between nighttime and daytime temperatures on Earth, as compared to non-atmospheric bodies, such as the Moon. The heat transmission through the various gases are respectively, 15 mW/(m.K) for carbon dioxide, 33 for methane, and 24 each for oxygen and nitrogen. Note that methane actually allows more heat to be lost from the Earth's surface than the other three. However, the actual effects of Earth's heat loss or gain by the presence of carbon dioxide and methane is insignificant, because of the very low concentrations in the atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is only 0.05%. The methane concentration is only 0.0002%.

The bottom line is we have more hogwash from global warming enthusiasts. They have a slight basic position with Earth's temperatures, but lose sight of practicality when they attribute any measurable temperature rise to man-made activity of either direct heat generation or increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane.

Open Letter to Rep. Smith - Climate Control

Open letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). A copy has been mailed to the Representative.

Dear Rep. Smith,
    Congratulations on your recent ascension to Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology! With your having served in the House for 26 years and being an advocate for Science, Technology, and Space Exploration, as well as a supporter of increased oil and gas production, I am confident that you are well positioned to fulfill this role.
    You are reported to be a supporter of federal aid to increased oil and gas production, to which I take exception. I am confident that the oil and gas industry can well fulfill its role to supply the American public, without the use of taxpayer funds from government. However, that is not the main point of my writing.
    You are also reported to be a climate-change skeptic. The purpose of my letter is to better define the terms and reduce the matter of skepticism to that of conviction.
    Climate change is a fact. There are good data showing that over the millennia, global climate has varied greatly. In the past several years, Earth temperature has apparently increased about 1°F. We have no reason to believe that these measurements are incorrect, and therefore accept that we are in the process of global warming, which is a climate change.
    However, the significant difference among proponents, opponents, and skeptics involves whether human activities have caused and will continue to cause climate change. This is an extremely significant point.
    If global warming has been caused by factors other than human involvement, it is less likely that any human corrective action will be effective, and the best course is to adapt.
    Conversely, if global warming has been caused by human activity in increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, an obvious control on global warming is to control carbon dioxide emissions. There has been a limited acceptance of CO2 theory on the part of the public, private industry, and more so on the part of government officials. However, the theorists have been unable to prove connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The reason that the theory continues to exist appears to be opportunities for individual power and profit combined with a larger bloated government through CO2 emission tax revenues.
    My objective with this letter is for you to consider the details of connectivity between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In this way, I hope you will become convinced, as am I, that there is none and that no consideration should be given at any time to the spending of billions of dollars to control CO2 atmospheric emissions.
    I am attaching a recent essay on my reaction to Michael Mann's recent book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" [already in the blog]. In addition, I also refer you to other similar essays, which I have written over the past few years, and are contained in my blog http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.



Respectfully yours,

Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net

Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Book on Global Warming

Michael Mann, the father of global warming theology, has written a book, entitled "The Hockey Stick And the Climate Wars"..

Based upon Michael Mann's previous writings and other reports, I already know his position and will not read the book. Rather, I will base my comments on the book report by Rudy Baum, in the December 10 issue of C&E News. Rudy recently retired as Editor-In-Chief of C&E News and is now a Chemical and Engineering News Editor-at-Large. During his previous term of office, he produced several articles on global warming. Those articles indicated that he was a clear advocate and supporter of the theory that mankind's recent activities has resulted in global warming. In spite of that predisposition to bias, I will use Rudy's book report as a basis for my comments on Michael Mann's positions.

Rudy reports that Michael Mann bemoans the details of release of his emails,by a hacker, attempts of persecution by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, and general attacks on his character. Such things are routine in emotional discussions by two sides having diverse opinions. I am not interested in those at present. Rather I prefer to discuss the science of the subject.

However, there is one consideration which questions Michael Mann's qualifications as a true scientist. That is, the use of the term "Hockey Stick" in referring to his graph on global warming data. The term is very catchy, such that it would normally be attributed to a promoter, rather than a scientist.

Rudy indicates that Michael makes five scientific points. I am listing these in detail and commenting on each.

1. Human activity has increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

There can be no dispute about this. Measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over a number of years has shown that there is an increase. The increase is also logical, because in the burning of organic fuels, such as coal, petroleum, gas, wood, etc., carbon dioxide is formed. In addition the world increases in human population and also requires more animals, both of which release carbon dioxide through respiration. The only question is whether the increase is significant to climate change. It should be noted that present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is only 0.05%.

2. The increase in CO2 and other trace gases produced by humans has a warming affect on Earth's surface.

That is probably a true statement but lacks quantification, such that it can be misleading. To obtain a proper perspective, one must consider global warming. The mechanism is that the sun's radiation is of such wavelength that it passes through the atmosphere to the earth unimpeded. At the Earth's surface, much of it is converted to heat. The heat tends to pass back to the stratosphere, but the wavelength is now such that atmospheric gases impede the passage and the Earth's temperature is higher than it would be without an atmosphere. The greenhouse gas effect of the atmosphere tends to stabilize Earth's temperatures, such that there is relatively little difference between night and day temperatures as compared to celestial bodies without atmosphere, such as the moon.

Measurement of a greenhouse gas effect can be done in the laboratory. Carbon dioxide is approximately twice as effective as the normal atmosphere in resisting the passage of heat. The transmission numbers, which are the reverse of insulation numbers are 14 mW/(mK) for carbon dioxide and 24 mW/(mK) for the atmosphere in general. However, keep in mind that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.05%. To put it in perspective, a lighted match can burn your finger, but does it SIGNIFICANTLY increase the temperature of a room.

3. Thermometer measurements show that, by the mid-1990s, Earth had warmed by about 1°F since preindustrial times.

There seems to be no reason to dispute this statement. If proper measurements show that to be the case, so be it. However, let us be careful to not read into the statement that man has caused the 1°F increase. There is another potential cause for the increase, and that is the sun's activity with respect to radiation output and distance from Earth.

4. Sophisticated models have been developed to investigate the causal mechanism behind changes in Earth's climate.

This is an intimidation statement. As the word "sophisticated" is used, the message is that it is so intellectually complex, a normal person cannot understand it. Hogwash! If a normal person cannot understand it, it probably doesn't exist. In addition, most scientists will agree that models can be developed to show anything that one wants to show. The only way to prove the veracity of the model is to ferret out each of the assumptions on which the model is based. We also have a nice example of how fiction can pervade reality in videos showing Spiderman walking up the sides of buildings.

I would like to see one model showing a believable causal mechanism for low atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to significantly affect global temperatures.

5. Only when human factors are included do those models reproduce all of the observed warming.

I don't understand why this was included as a separate item. Presumably, Item 4 was a study to prove that atmospheric carbon dioxide affected the Earth's climate and that the believable mechanism must have included carbon dioxide concentration.

There is no doubt that with the burning of fossil fuels and respiration of increased humans and cattle, there is an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Proof or even plausible speculation that such carbon dioxide concentration increase has had a significant effect on global temperatures is yet to be forthcoming.

The Continued Drum Beating on Carbon Dioxide Emission Control

In the November 26 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hoag reports on a UN gathering intended to extend the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol involves control of carbon dioxide emissions, with the intention of reducing global warming. The new talks will occur in Doha, Qatar, which is immediately an indication that this is an ongoing operation intended to satisfy the participants in nice travel programs.

The Kyoto Accord required industrialized countries to collectively lower their emissions of carbon dioxide by 5% from 1990 levels over a five-year period. The US was not among the signers of the treaty, for which I have to add my hearty congratulations.

Japan and Russia have already said that they will not take on a second set of carbon dioxide emission reductions and the EU has already ill advisedly established legislation to control its carbon dioxide gases at the level being proposed in the new UN recommendation.

All of these meetings and discussions are intended to keep the ball rolling on the ridiculous matter of man-made global warming. Even Elliott Derringer, Executive Vice President of the nonprofit Center for Climate and Energy Solutions predicts that the Doha meeting will will be a relatively low-key affair.

I suppose we can expect this boondoggling to continue as long as the public agrees to financially support government officials and others on such vacation trips. The operators will also be encouraged to continue participation as they receive these benefits and perceive obtaining additional benefits from the public feeding trough.

Fear Mongering on Man-Made Global Warming

In the Concentrates section of the November 12 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, CH says that based on a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, businesses, governments, and communities across the world need to plan for a warming world. The report goes on to say that by 2100, the world will be 6°C warmer than present.


That may or may not be true. There is no mention of how the report authors come to this conclusion. It may be just another instance of fear mongering on the part of global warming advocates.

However, the report does clearly indicate that it's prediction is based upon increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere caused by the activities of man. Again, there is no indication of how carbon dioxide affects global warming.

We continue to hear about carbon dioxide, and now additionally other gases, being designated as greenhouse gases. Presumably a greenhouse gas is one which has a special property of inhibiting transmission of heat through the atmosphere to interstellar space, thereby increasing global temperatures. No scientific proof or even a reasonable proposed mechanism has ever been presented to justify the claims.

In fact, data from the gas encyclopedia indicates that the transmission of heat through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than it is through the other atmospheric gases, including the nitrogen and oxygen which are the major atmospheric constituents. In addition, the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would make the effect insignificant.

More on Global Warming

This is a modified form. I previously goofed up my math.

 

CJ Anonymous says:
    You may have seen a recent report that the Gulf Stream along the East Coast is beginning to unlock billions of tons of methane now frozen as methane hydrate on the ocean floor.  There is speculation as to how much of this will be converted to carbon dioxide by ocean bacteria and how much will be released as methane.  However either way, this is a major source of green house gases completely out of control by humans.  Add to that another major source of methane from anaerobic decay of plant and animal wastes that humans have no control over. It then becomes logical to ask whether or not humans can do very much about global warming.

    It seems to me that prudent conservation is good policy.  However, current measures being legislated and regulated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are extreme, and the negative economic impact far outweighs the value of those reductions.

I reply:    Not to worry about natural events. Worry about the irrational decisions of politicians.
    Let's take a look at the greenhouse gas aspect of methane.
    Thermal conductivity is a measure of the ability of a material to transfer heat. The thermal conductivity of nitrogen, which is about the same as the total atmosphere, is 24 mW/(mK). For methane, it is 33 mW/(mK). This means infrared or heat passes through methane easier than through the atmosphere, and therefore has a negative greenhouse effect of 37%.
    The total weight of the earth's atmosphere is 5.3 X10E15 tons. Let's just say we release 5.3 billion tons of methane from the seafloor. That's 5.3 X 10E9 tons and would increase the total atmosphere to 5.3 X 10E24 tons. The methane content of the atmosphere would then be 1 X 10E-13 %  ((5.3 X 10E9 / 5.3 X 10E24) X 100), which is 1 preceded by 13 zeros; an extremely low concentration. Even though the heat of transmission for methane is 37% higher than that for the atmosphere in general, the low concentration of methane in the atmosphere would make its effect insignificant.

More Fear and Costs on Climate Change

    According to the National Research Council (NRC), the Earth is warming at unprecedented rates, which will lead to floods, droughts, raging storms, and heat waves. A picture of a flooded street in Belmar New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy is included. The report goes on to say that these extreme natural events are related to US security. It doesn't say how this relationship exists, but it does recommend monitoring climate-change impacts on 12 to 15 countries because of this national security. In addition it also recommends that 50 or so other country should be watched because of potential humanitarian concerns. These items constitute the bulk of the report by Jeff Johnson in the November 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.

    Unfortunately, the NRC gives no reference supporting their conclusion of these impending disasters. Hurricane Sandy is used as an example, but no mention is made of a recent report on the Weather Channel that in the last several years, there was one other hurricane larger than Sandy. The report also does not mention the Hurricane of 1938, which devastated Long Island, New York, nor the drought that existed in the Southwest for several years in the 30s.

    In essence, we have the usual claptrap that extreme climate change is in progress and the implication that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The government objective is to influence the public to approve a carbon tax in order to reduce such devastation. Note also that the national security issue has now been injected, which will require significant additional funding for "monitoring and careful selection of variables likely to affect climate change in some 12 to 15 countries, and the need to watch 50 or so other countries for humanitarian concerns brought about by climate change".

    I wonder how soon, if ever, we can expect some rational thinking on the part of government leaders. Climate change exists and has always existed. The basic causes are so large that the puny activities of man have little to no effect on climate. As climate change continues, it is man's obligation to adjust to the changes, not to try to influence those changes. As an example of futility, what would be man's chances of changing the relationship between night and day, which is distinctly a factor controlling climate?

Man-Made Global Warming

Open letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News:

Dear Dr. Rouhi,    I was extremely disappointed with your editorial in the November 12 issue.    You appear to be taking up the same drum beating previously used by your predecessor Rudy Baum. I can partially excuse Rudy. He is a political hack, but I initially gave you more credit as a scientist.    The issue is man-made global warming.    In your editorial, you dwell on the anecdotal instance of Tullo's house on Staten Island and seem to use that as a basis for stating that, "Weather events of super storm Sandy's magnitude and devastation are increasing in frequency". That seems to be a rather silly conclusion, if you relate it only to Tullo's house. However if you are relating it to more general experiences, what are they? The directors of the TV weather channel do not seem to support that view.
    If we want to talk about anecdotal instances, I can understand your inability as a young person to recall the Hurricane of 1938 or the Dustbowl in the '30s. However I lived through both those times, and although I was personally not affected, I recall many of the reported details.
    The Hurricane of 1938 missed Manhattan and Staten Island. It went a little farther East and smashed Long Island. It changed the topography, such that the Department of Interior had to redraw topographical maps of Long Island.
    The Dustbowl was of longer duration. Fortunately, PBS is now running a several-part series on TV. I don't think that you need to watch the few hours of presentation, but you might look at some patches and get a better idea of what it was about. See if you can find the sections on the dust clouds, which are very impressive.
    Notice that those two events, one of short duration and one of longer duration, occurred more than 70 years ago. I don't know what the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was at that time, but we could look it up. Why did it take 60 years to come to some conclusion, likely erroneous, that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration are responsible for climate change? Sandy was no worse than the Hurricane of '38 and the Dustbowl of the '30s.
    As a scientist, you have an obligation to scientifically support any generalizations you may make. What data do you have which shows a connection between global warming and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration? If you can find no data which logically support your theory, you should stop beating the drum.
    One of my Associates said, "What we are facing is the adoption by political elites of policies to mitigate it [global warming].  They believe that it is "settled science" and are using the political process to promulgate laws and regulations intended to provide some control over global warming.  It is largely out of the hands of skeptical scientists to control the political process.  It will only be controlled by reducing the political power of those elites".
    Are you part of the problem?

The Hoax of Global Warming

From:   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2CK5e2bUd

 

"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. 

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."
    
Yesterday, Pres. Obama again waved the fear flag of global warming. Either the President is ignorant of the facts or he has a political agenda. I suspect it is the latter, which would be to establish a carbon tax on the burning of fossil fuels. This would lead to a significant increase in government revenues at the expense of the public, by which it will pay through higher electricity, heating, and gasoline prices

US Nonparticipation in EU Cap & Trade

There is good news in that the Democratic Senate has finally come up with a reasonable approach on a topic.

In the Government Concentrates section of the October 1 issue of C&E News, CH reports that the Senate has unanimously passed a bill which would prohibit US airlines from participating in the European Union's Cap & Trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.

A similar bill has already been passed by the House and after working out minor differences in committee, we will see whether Pres. Obama will sign the legislation.

A secondary interesting aspect is how the European Union will respond. Will it prohibit US airlines from having their planes take off and land in EU country airports?

Public Funding of Global Warming Research

    On the subject of Promoting Global Warming Theory, there is a short article by CH in the Government Concentrates Section of the September 24 Issue of C&E News.
    CH reports that a Virginia trial court prohibited release of climate researcher Michael Mann's emails on the subject of global warming.
    Michael Mann was a University of Virginia researcher, who basically established the global warming theory involving carbon dioxide by use of public money grants.
    It seems to me that the Virginia trial court is way off base on this decision. Public money used to support public research should justify public ownership and release of research information to the public. Conversely, any research supported by private funding should be considered private property.

More Deception on Common Dioxide and Climate Change

    In the Government Concentrates section of Chemical and Engineering News, August 20 issue, there is a short article saying that unless we undertake capture of carbon dioxide emission from power plants, "long-term climate heating would increase by nearly 50%".
    I thought I would take a look at the reference, which is in Environmental Science & Technology. I find that particular publication is part of the American Chemical Society's retinue of magazines. Let's recall that the ACS is a big promoter of large government and particularly a promoter of government grants to universities. In turn, government grants to universities favor projects which are advantageous to government policy, which is further increase in the size of government and taxation to support it.
    The article of interest came from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is almost a government agency. I was able to obtain only an abstract of the article. Access to the full article have cost me $35, or I could get a subscription to 250 articles for $500. I suspect this borders on limiting access to data which should be publicly available.
    Unfortunately, the abstract does not mention the "50% increase in heating", which still leaves me in the position of not knowing what it means. However, the abstract again goes on to justify whatever claim it's making because of "cumulative radiative forcing". This is a term which was invented by the environmentalists as a pseudoscientific reason to justify their attempts to establish public fear of climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
    In fact, there is no reason to believe that any carbon dioxide emissions, which would increase carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, would have any effect on climate. Tests of heat transfer through carbon dioxide are not significantly different than heat transfer through oxygen and nitrogen, which are the major components of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide constitutes only about 0.025% of the atmosphere. At that low concentration, any effect would be negligible, unless carbon dioxide has some kind of magical property. The promoters of carbon dioxide capture have invented the "cumulative radiative forcing" as the magical property, with no explanation of how the magic works in the real world.
    In essence the government, with the assistance of universities and the American chemical Society, continues its unrelenting pursuit of attempts to force power plants to capture carbon dioxide from its emissions. If it is successful on this, all power plants will undergo major cost increases for new equipment, which will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher electricity prices. In addition, there will be penalties imposed by government, and we all know from the recent decision of the Supreme Court on Obama care that it is difficult to distinguish between a penalty and a tax. They are essentially the same, with government obtaining money. Penalties paid by power companies will also be a "cost of doing business" and passed on to the consumer in the form of increased electricity prices. Do you want to pay a higher price for your electricity on government's mystical claim that if you don't, climate change will really hurt you?

Drought and Irrigation

    An  associate of mine, who is in the grain handling business, sent me the latest crop report. An excerpt of this is as follows: " Yield is no longer the only factor being impacted by poor crop conditions. Traders are now taking harvested acreage numbers into consideration. The million dollar question at this point will be how many acres will not be harvested for grain, whether they’re chopped for silage or disced under. The amount of farmers owning crop insurance has increased significantly from 1988."

   I replied to him as follows:

Bob,
    Thanks for sending me the crop report. Several things come to mind.
    The high proportion of insured farmers is obviously favorable to keep them in business, but as Larry says, the drought is so extensive and losses so widespread that there may be an excessive burden on the insurers. We can only hope that there is not.
    With respect to crop quality and quantity, apparently there was sufficient germination, but the subsequent lack of water has left the "fruit" in a dehydrated and shrunken condition. Because the water content is low, the size of corn ears will be smaller and the weight lower. It will be generally unfit for human consumption, but cattle should be able to handle it with their grinding teeth and if given enough water. The shrunken kernels are also still usable for ethanol production, since normal procedures is to ferment a mash, which is obtained from ground kernels and added water, if necessary. Cereal processors also use the same procedure, without the fermentation. If I'm right about any of this, the situation may not be quite as bad as it appears.
    As the report points out, farmers and their production are always victims of weather conditions, of which drought is the most significant. Local windstorms can easily wipe out a field or two, but that normally can be handled by crop insurance.
    Since I now live in the Southwest, which is generally considered an arid area of the US, I have become much more cognizant of water needs in farming. We live in an area of highly concentrated cotton production, and rainfall is generally low. Dry land farming of cotton can be a crapshoot. Irrigated cotton is almost always profitable, although there is some variation in quantity and quality from year to year. Our water for irrigation comes from the Ogallala, which is an underground river having its origin in the Northern Rockies. Lubbock is the terminus of this aquifer (underground river), and we have seen it shrinking in recent years, as more and more farmers continue to draw on it for their irrigation needs.
     For a possibility of additional irrigation, lets consider the general topography of the central US and its rainfall.
    The Northwest Mountain states are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches. Lubbock has an average annual rainfall of 19 inches, which we know is marginal. Therefore, present rainfall in the Northwest Mountain states is insufficient and that topography is not conducive to large-scale production of field crops, such as corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Southwest Mountain states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona have an average rainfall of 11 inches with poor topography.

    The theoretical breadbasket of the US is all of the area known as the Great Plains. This constitutes an area from the Rocky Mountains eastward to the Mississippi River. The possibility of agricultural production in this large area, considering topography and rainfall, is:
    The Great Plains states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are borderline mountainous, but have significant usable agricultural portions if properly irrigated. The present average rainfall of these four states is only 12 inches (19 is marginal).
    The next eastern line is North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Since all of the states are in the Great Plains, they are active ideally suited topologically for massive field crop agriculture. Generally their western portions are deficient in rainfall, although the average is 26 inches.
    The net result of these observations is that there is a vast topographically suited land area available for massive field crop production providing water could be made available.
    The federal government has been occupying itself with climate control, which is basically impossible. There is presently even little or no ability to control weather. Alternatively, should be considering a huge project to irrigate portions of the Great Plains.
    There were two available sources of water.
    The first is Great Lakes water, which is continually replenished by rainfall in the Northeast. The Mississippi is geographically closer, but is not a dependable source. It is now almost not navigable under present drought conditions. Generally the states bordering the Great Lakes regard this water as their personal property. It would take an act of Congress to declare it as "eminent domain" for the federal government.
    The second is a salt water source from Baja California or the Gulf of Mexico. This water would have to be desalinated to an extent suitable for agriculture. However, such technology through super filtration or sometimes called reverse osmosis is available.    Another difficulty is the elevation of the land area to be irrigated. The elevation of the land to be irrigated is 1200 feet on the east side and about 7800 feet on the west. The Great Lakes has an elevation of 600 feet, and seawater elevation is zero. In any case, water would have to be pumped to a higher elevation for practical gravity irrigation. The best source of power would be nuclear plants, which could be placed in remote areas to avoid the usual fear of nuclear by the general population.
    With respect to pipelines for transmission and the subsequent restructuring of ground surfaces for gravity irrigation, we now have available very large earth moving machinery, the availability of fuel for its operation, and a large supply of unemployed manpower for its operation.
    We are in an intensive financial recession, and many people are looking for employment opportunities. This is a project that would not only makes jobs, but accomplish something useful as a result. Recall that the Romans built aqueducts throughout Eastern and Western Europe and through the Mediterranean area and North Africa, all without the benefit of modern construction technology.

Accidental Promotion of the Global Warming Hoax

    A participant on the Neil Cavuto Fox News program this Saturday morning said the SCIENCE has proven the disastrous effects of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. There were no objections to this statement among the other participants. This bothers me horrendously, because it implied to the general viewing public that this is a correct assertion, since it was not challenged by any of the panel experts.
    However the fact is, that this is a hoax, which continues to be perpetuated by those expecting to make some kind of personal profit in its acceptance. The government is particularly anxious to have the public accept this assertion, because it brings tremendous new opportunities for taxation, with subsequent increase in government size and power.
    Most people now have a high school education, part of which was to take a course in chemistry and another course in physics. With discussions of variability on quality of the courses aside, one can be sure that anyone taking these courses received at least a smattering of scientific thought process plus some basic understandings of chemistry and physics principles. The problem is that most these graduates, do not have the confidence of questionable thinking when so-called experts come out with new concepts, such as carbon dioxide relating to global warming. One of the reasons for this is that the experts develop their own lexicon of terms which intimidate average persons.
    For a great many years all Roman Catholic masses were conducted completely in Latin. Similarly, the medical profession established use of Latin terms for various diseases and treatments. Botanists and others have done the same. While there is some practicality in using Latin designations, by and large this was done in order to preserve in the public eye a maintenance of esteem esteem for priests, medical doctors. Now big science has seized on this opportunity as well. But although, new terms are developed which can be intimidating to the public, all should be explainable to any person of reasonable intelligence who has received a high school degree. If not, the correct assumption would be that the perpetrator is hoodwinking the general public, and that is what is occurring in a matter of carbon dioxide relating to global warming.

Global Warming Fraud

    Michael Mann is the father of the theory that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration leads to climate change. He was a professor at the University of Virginia from 1999 to 2005, during which time he developed his theory.
    Kenneth Cuccinelli is a Virginia State Attorney General and a skeptic of Mann's climate-change theory.
    On the basis that the University of Virginia is a public institution supported by taxpayer funds, Cuccinelli petitioned the University for access to Mann's research records. The University denied the request and the case went to the Virginia Supreme Court.
    The Virginia Supreme Court supported the University's denial for access on the basis of a 2002 Virginia law, which disallows fraud investigations against individuals or businesses that receive state funds, including state agencies and public universities. That ended the case.
    I see a strong similarity between the Cuccinelli case and the present attempts of Congress to obtain information on "Fast and Furious"
    It is my experience that people hide things for only two reasons; either to avoid having them stolen or to perpetuate deceit.

Carbon Credits - An Outgrowth of the Hoax

    Amruthanand Nair's article entitled, "India Reaps Benefits of Carbon Program", in the June 18 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News, reviews the worldwide situation on carbon credits.
    Carbon credits are an outgrowth of the international attempt to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as a method to control world climate change. I have yet to see any data justifying the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any significant effect on climate change.
    Be that as it may, in 1997 an international meeting in Japan developed what is known as the "Kyoto Protocol". The basis of the Protocol was that too much carbon dioxide was being emitted to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and this was having a disastrous effect on climate change. In the discussion, it was agreed that the world should be divided into two segments; industrialized and developing. Examples of industrialized nations were France, Germany, UK, and the US. An example of a developing nation was India.
    The protocol required that industrialized nations were required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Developing nations were not required to do so. However, if a company in a developing nation reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, it could receive a carbon credit known as a "Certified Emission Reduction" (CER). Each CER was equivalent to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide. CERs could also be obtained by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and trifluoromethane.
    The CER's achieved monetary values, because they could be sold to companies in industrialized nations, which could then use them as an alternative to reducing their own carbon dioxide emissions. This was a particularly generous program for India, which with a few minor equipment changes could obtain CER's and sell them to companies in Western Europe. The initial trading value of a CER was $53. Price dropped to $12-$15 six months ago, and it is now less than $4. Some Indian companies reaped a gold mine, but it looks like the heyday is over.
    It is interesting to speculate on why there was such a significant drop in CER value. We know that the recession in European Union countries has decreased factory production and related carbon dioxide emissions, which automatically reduces the need to purchase CER's from developing countries. I also speculate that another reason for the price reduction is the general public awareness that there is no basic scientific data which would indicate that carbon dioxide emissions lead to harmful climate change. This decreases the legitimacy of the Kyoto protocol. In fact, efforts to update it and make the terms more legally binding have failed. Hooray for common sense!

Debunking Global Warming Theory

    Why would anyone want to debunk a theory? Simply because following a false theory to an extension of practicality may very well lead to disaster.
    Does global warming exist? I don't know, but I will guess that it probably does. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on temperature taking at various locations, discussions of ice thickness, etc., but the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate there is some slight global warming in the recent past. Why?
    My purpose here is not to discuss the pros and cons of global warming but rather to concentrate on the theory that any global warming is resulting from the man's activity. I am particularly interested in increased emission of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels, and now an increase in atmospheric methane concentration, through leakage natural gas wells.
    Global Warming Theory says that the primary increase in global warming is caused by this increase in the atmospheric concentration of these two gases. To support the theory, the term Greenhouse Gas has been developed and needs to be understood.
    The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in its website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html) that greenhouse gases allow direct sunlight to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the short-wave energy heats the surface, heat is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy (heat), thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Another way to say this is that sunlight heats up your car and the heat cannot escape to interstellar space, because greenhouse gases block the escape.
    I have no quarrel with this. Atmospheric gases do impede the escape of heat from a terrestrial body. For example, the moon has no gases and there are great extremes of temperature. Conversely, the greenhouse gases of the Earth equalize temperatures, so that the difference between day and night temperatures are not so great as to make the place unlivable.
    What are these greenhouse gases? Since we know that Earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with trace amounts of many other gases, it's a fair assumption that the greenhouse gas of Earth is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen.
    However, the Global Warming Theory enthusiasts are not satisfied with the obvious. For whatever reasons they may have, they desire to complicate the issue by attributing a special effect of higher global warming to the presence of the trace gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.
    The special effects are further defined by a mathematical term for Global Warming Potential. The equation is attached. If you look at it, don't be intimidated. Notice that there is a term for an investigated gas in the numerator and an equivalent term for carbon dioxide in the denominator. All this says is that we calculate the Global Warming Potential of any gas in relation to carbon dioxide. The assumption is that carbon dioxide is bad. It also says nothing about Global Warming EFFECTS. In other words it says nothing about how much nitrogen or oxygen contribute to the greenhouse effect of stabilizing temperatures, nor does it consider carbon dioxide and methane for that same activity.
    A little common sense tells you that in order for anything to have an effect on something else, it has to be present. If it's not there, it cannot have an effect. A reasonable extension of this thought that the more a substance is present, the greater will be its effect. Example, a glass of whiskey at 70% alcohol contains more alcohol than a glass of wine at 20% alcohol. The glass of whiskey will go farther toward inebriation than the glass of wine.
    Therefore, it stands to reason that because of the high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, those gases will likely have a much greater effect on temperature equalization of the earth than will any trace gases. The only way this could not be true is if the trace gases have a very special attribute compared to nitrogen and oxygen. We are already seeing that the Global Warming Potential Equation does not address this possibility.
    Advocates of global warming increase caused by man-generated increases in carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere have developed another equation. The equation for Radiative Forcing Capacity (RF) is also attached. Again, do not be intimidated by the equation. The only term of significance that it contains is the infrared absorption of the gas being considered. That is, how much heat can a gas hold? Well, good! At least we have something that starts to concern the practical aspects of the atmosphere. We can calculate the RF of nitrogen, oxygen or any gas, but no one seems to have done that.
    But we also must return to common sense. While one gas may be able to hold more heat than another gas, it is obvious that the amount of gas present is an important factor. In other words, we must consider gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Let's compare the heats that could be held in the atmosphere by nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Let's take million parts of atmospheric gas. Of that total there are 790,000 parts of nitrogen. Making up a number, let's also say that each part of nitrogen can hold 1 calorie of heat. The content then for the nitrogen is 790,000 calories. Doing the same thing with carbon dioxide, there are 350 parts in the million parts of atmospheric gas. Let's also say that a part of carbon dioxide can hold twice as much heat as nitrogen. That would be 2 calories per part. With the 350 parts of carbon dioxide at 2 calories per part, the total heat content of the carbon dioxide would be 700 calories. Notice that the content of the carbon dioxide is only 0.08% of that held by the nitrogen. Not much effect. Let's also say that perhaps the carbon dioxide can hold 100 times more heat than the nitrogen. It's heat content would then be 4%. Still only borderline with respect to effectiveness, and we haven't even yet considered that the presence of oxygen would also bring that value down. We then also have to ask ourselves whether it is even reasonable that one part of carbon dioxide could be 100 times more effective in holding heat than one part of nitrogen. But these are calculations that actually could be made using the RF equation.
    Some have said there could be huge differences in the RF's of various gases. They have likened the action of heat without light, which is a reasonable comparison. When light strikes the surface, it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. Usually all three actions occur, but in different amounts depending upon the object which the light strikes. For example, when light strikes glass, a large portion of it is transmitted. If light strikes a black object, a large portion of the light is absorbed. And if light strikes a reflective surface, such as a shiny metal, a large portion will be reflected. But notice that in order to have these large differences, we had to materially change the nature of the object being struck by light. In the atmosphere, we don't have these large differences. All components are gases. True. Some have two items per molecule, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Some have three atoms per molecule, such as carbon dioxide. And, some have four atoms per molecule, such as methane.
    However, we do have some real data on heat transmission through various gases, which is exactly our case in greenhouse gas considerations. Thermal conductivity is the rate at which heat can pass through a substance. The Gas Encyclopedia by Air Liquide (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp) gives thermal conductivity for many pure gases. Thermal conductivities for both nitrogen and oxygen are about 24. For carbon dioxide, it is 14 and for methane 32. Since the higher the thermal conductivity, the less heat is being absorbed by a gas, it is apparent that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat than nitrogen and oxygen. Conversely, methane absorbs less heat. Another important factor is the ratio of the numbers. If we take carbon dioxide, it is 1.7 times more effective than nitrogen in absorbing heat. Notice that we said earlier that if carbon dioxide would be twice as effective as nitrogen in heat holding, the mere fact that there's so little of it would make a heat absorption difference in the atmosphere of only 0.08%.
    For strong believers that any observed global warming is caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through burning fossil fuels, I hope that the above presentation has shed a little doubt on that presumption. At least, I feel that considering heat absorption of major atmospheric gases, rather than considering only trace gases, is a realistic approach to determining total heat effects related to greenhouse gases and global warming. 
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

Carbon DioxCheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "CO2 Emissions", in the June 4 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions. Since atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.ide in the Atmosphere

    Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "CO2 Emissions", in the June 4 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
    In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions.
    Since atmospheric  carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.

Let's NotTry to Control Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    In the May 28th issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hogue and Melody Bomgardner report on the G-8 Summit Meeting, attended by leaders of the eight worlds largest economic countries. The G-8 agreed to establish and share best practices for energy production, including hydraulic fracturing and deep water drilling, phase out of existing subsidies for fossil fuels, universal access to clean, safe and affordable energy, advanced energy efficiency of appliances and equipment, and improved food security and nutrition in developing countries. I agree completely with all of the above.
    Separately, three private companies announced plans to participate in the food security and nutrition program. Hopefully, this will be without government subsidy.
    The subject of climate change was also addressed. It was agreed to reduce emissions of short-lived pollutants that contribute to global warming. I'm not sure what, short-term pollutants are, but methane, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons were mentioned. I doubt that hydrofluorocarbons are short-term pollutants.
    The G-8 pledged to continue efforts to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases and to support international negotiations for a new climate change treaty that will apply to both industrialized and developing countries. Carbon dioxide was not specifically mentioned as a greenhouse gas, but was implied. The leaders pledged to continue efforts to reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases and to support international negotiations for a new climate change treaty that will apply to both industrialized and developing countries. While carbon dioxide was not specifically named, it may be implied to be included within the international negotiations. If so, I strongly object, although I agree with the other three. There is no proof that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas above other gases naturally present in the atmosphere and its attempted control would cause a financial disruption of trillions of dollars.

The Magical Powert of Carbon Dioxide

     Chemical & Engineering News has more information on the magical greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. In the May 7, 2012 Issue, Jeff Johnson reviews a Worldwatch Institute report released on April 28. Worldwatch is a Washington DC-based, environmental think tank.
    The report says that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere declined 1.5% 2009 and rose 5.8% in 2010. Carbon dioxide concentrations are now 45% higher they were in 1990 it is said that among greenhouse gases, Carbon oxide resides the longest in the atmosphere and is the most abundant.. The author says the increase in carbon dioxide concentration is responsible for an increase in Earth's average surface temperature.
    I also heard on Fox News last Friday that Shell Energy has postponed oil drilling off Barrow, Alaska, because of unusual ice thickness; apparently the thickest in 10 years. This tends to refute somewhat the claim of global warming. However, we will not now engage in the argument of whether there is global warming or not.
    My major objective is to debunk the notion that increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration leads to global warming, with associated disastrous consequences.
    All gases resist the passage of heat. In other words they are mild heat insulators. I say mild, because gases are diffuse and it takes considerable thickness to have the same affect as solid heat insulators, such as fiberglass or cotton batting. A few inches of solid heat insulator can have the same effect as a mile of gas. The term "greenhouse gas" has been developed to relate the heat installation of gas to heat loss from the Earth's surface and related global surface temperatures.
    The term "greenhouse gas" has subsequently developed a negative or damaging impression. However, the fact is that greenhouse gases are absolutely necessary for the existence of life on earth. The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen (greenhouse gases) tend to equalize temperatures from the extremes of night and day; night being the absence of direct sunlight and day being direct sunlight. For example, our Moon is approximately the same distance as Earth from the Sun, which is the heat source. The moon has no greenhouse gases (no atmosphere) and has a nighttime temperature of minus 243°F and a daytime temperature of 225°F. These are clearly temperature extremes, under which life as we know it could not exist. Conversely, the average nighttime temperature in Lubbock is 45°F and the daytime temperature is 72°F. This is clearly a big difference from the Moon and obviously something we can live with.
    The several miles of mixed nitrogen and oxygen gas above the surface of the Earth are clearly responsible for the difference in average nighttime and daytime temperatures between the Moon and Earth. That mixed gas is essentially 100%. If that concentration is reduced slightly by an increase of 0.002% in carbon dioxide, does one really believe that the thermal insulation of the total greenhouse gas will be affected? Only if carbon dioxide has magical powers, and I haven't seen any data so far that shows such to be true.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

The following article was sent to me by a nephew:

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

Info for the Uninformed Environmentalist

The following is from one of my nephews:

"I was the presiding person at a community legislative forum. I read questions from cards the audience submitted.  One question had to do with CO2,  and the legislator spoke about the rain forest and alluded that the US urban sprawl had cleared many trees. At the end of his answer, I said that from my many years in the lumber business, I knew that there were more trees in the US now than in George Washington's day."

Reduce Expenditures for Climate Change Research

Congress passed the Global Change Research Act of 1992 to collect information on man's contribution to global climate change. Thirteen departments and agencies were specified for the program. Consistent with all budgetary matters, Congress continues to fund the program annually. The last announced funding a few years ago was $2 billion.

The current political accent is on the economy, including size of government and its cost. Such discussion has been going on for many months with apparently little progress. But we have to start somewhere. Some may say that $2 billion is a pittance. However there are thousands of these pittances in our federal government operations and these involve trillions of dollars.

Why not start cutting this one? Why does the US have responsibility for the determining any possibility of man's contribution to global climate change? If this work seems desirable, would it not be more appropriate to relegate it to the United Nations, to which we already pay substantial sums?