Cost of Global Warming Hoax

    According to EurActiv.com, all countries of the world collectively spent $359 billion last year in limiting global warming. The article actually said "invested" in limiting global warming. However, I judge the use of the term "invested" as equivalent to what has been previously used in "investing" with Bernie Madoff and his Ponzi scheme. In any case, that comes to about $1 billion per day, which is not small change. A year earlier, the total spent was $364 billion. Are we barely moving in the proper direction?
The World Economic Forum has said that $700 billion per year is needed to tackle climate change, which is twice what was actually spent last year. The International Energy Agency estimates $5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy projects alone, if rising temperatures are to be pegged at 2 degrees Celsius. If that was said last year, it would be $5 trillion in 8 years, or $600 billion per year, which is about the same as the amount claimed by the World Economic Forum.
Note that the International Energy Agency expects the global temperature to be 2°C higher in 2020. That is 7 years from now. For the last 7 years there has been no global warming, in spite of the fact that there have been steady increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
It seems to me that doomsday projections from global warming are grossly exaggerated and that the money previously spent to supposedly limit global warming is money down a rat hole. How long will it take for us to learn that we can't predict global temperature seven years into the future when predictions for the last seven years have been shown to be completely unjustified?
Let's quit spending on correcting things we really don't understand. Continue the studies, and if and when we see something that we can really trust as believable, we can then try to alleviate it.

How is Atmospheric CO2 Related to Global Warming

Open Email to Al Gore and Supporters:

Dear Mr. Gore and Supporters,
    The Daily Ticker quotes you as saying, “We’re paying the cost of global warming pollution, chiefly CO2, in lots of ways.”
    I have a simple question, "Why do you believe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning carbon containing fuels is related to global warming?"

More from the IPCC on Global Warming

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear Representatives and Congressman,
    the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released its latest report on climate change. According to Chemical and Engineering News, the latest world report rests on stronger science, researchers say. The summary goes on to say that the world is warming and humans are the dominant cause, confirming earlier assessments. The study group notes that a better fundamental understanding of climate systems has boosted the confidence underlying its predictions and projections. Such improvements arise from greater amounts of data available from continuing climate observations over time, enhanced climate models and increases in computer processing power.
    It should be separately noted that no world temperature increases of any significance have been observed in the last 10 years, in spite of measured increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Since all previous IPCC computer modeling showed significant temperature increases, it is obvious that previous computer modeling was incorrect and misleading. The current claimed improvement in modeling techniques may be at least a recognition that everything previously said was wrong.
    The report finds that the main driver of climate change [global warming] is greenhouse gas emission, principally carbon dioxide. Without checks on greenhouse gas emission, the IPCC claims exorbitantly that global service temperatures will likely rise 2 degrees centigrade by 2050.
    That's only a repeat of their old drum that they keep pounding. Never, for even an instant, do they give an explanation of why carbon dioxide would grossly affect global warming temperatures at the low concentration of 0.05%, which it exists in the atmosphere, compared to other obvious greenhouse gases in high concentration, such as oxygen and nitrogen. Several of us scientists continue to ask the scientific community for laboratory data or reasonable speculation which would indicate that carbon dioxide is a special greenhouse gas. Nothing has been forthcoming for the last two years. The IPCC is dodging that main issue by continuing to predict disaster and generate fear in the collective mind of a gullible public. The IPCC couples this with super sophisticated but mostly irrelevant information involving higher mathematical calculations, recent inclusion of the so-called effects of land-use change, and effects of aerosols.
    I call this to your attention, primarily because you handle the purse strings of the nation, and I would like you to be aware that any dime you spend, in reacting to the carbon dioxide/climate change hoax, will be an extreme disservice to the US public.

Futility of Tracking Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is part of the Department of Energy. It has spent taxpayer money on conducting a survey of carbon dioxide emissions in the US. Cheryl Hogue of Chemical and Engineering News has a two-page article on the details of such omissions.
    This is a ridiculous study with a complete waste of taxpayer money!
    There is absolutely no reason to even consider, no less study, carbon dioxide emissions. It has only been done as part of the Obama Administration program to obtain additional government revenue through the taxation of CO2 emissions, coupled with the unnecessary development of sources of energy not involving the burning of carbon containing fuels. The primary motivation appears to be the taxation aspect, with the ancillary need to supply other forms of energy, such as wind and solar. This also happens to be a concession to socialistic environmental groups, who have been strong contributors to Pres. Obama's reelection.
     On the other hand, how can I be so adamant to say that the study of carbon dioxide emissions is a ridiculous undertaking? The reason is an unsupported claim that carbon dioxide emission from burning carbon fuels is connected with global warming. There has been no scientific data showing that carbon dioxide is anymore resistant to the passage of heat than any of the other more prevalent atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. In addition, it's very low concentration of only 0.05% in the atmosphere make its effect insignificant.
    The bottom line is that carbon dioxide emissions have no significant effect on global warming, and in fact, recent data shows a considerable decrease in global warming, even though carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing.
    The sooner we get over this hoax of relating carbon dioxide emissions to some sort of disastrous consequences in the environment, the sooner we will be able to stop frittering away money on this ridiculous project of controlling CO2 emissions.

Global Warming

    One of our Political Associates sent the following message to Fox and Friends at Fox News:
    "Congratulations to Maria Molina and Fox and Friends for briefly describing the composition of our atmosphere one day last week.  Unfortunately, it  missed a golden opportunity to stress the fact that carbon dioxide is ONLY about 0.04% of our atmosphere, that the Earth would be uninhabitable because of extremes in temperature without 'greenhouse gasses', which also include oxygen, nitrogen and water vapor, that carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth and that carbon dioxide has no known magical properties to differentiate it from oxygen and nitrogen as a contributing factor to any global warming that might occur." 

    "Any future programs you air regarding this subject might ask the viewing audience for ANY data establishing  a cause and effect relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global warming.  I do not know of any such data and doubt that it exists".

The Carbon Dioxide/Climate Change Hoax

    A man and wife, who are part of our Political Advisor Group and also have a scientific background, have written an interesting short article. It relates to public perception of global warming and a flat Earth. This is what they have to say:
    "Hundreds of years ago most people, with no factual information to the contrary, believed the Earth was flat.  They were uninformed, superstitious and gullible.  Today, most people, even with some factual evidence to the contrary (composition of the atmosphere and the thermal conductivities of the gasses comprising it), believe that man-generated carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming and climate change.  Since there are NO cause and effect studies to link the two, it is evident that most people are still uninformed, superstitious and gullible.  What is worse, is that this hoax is being  abetted by ignorant and/or unscrupulous politicians to further their political aims."
    I am also posting this on my blog at: http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com .

Global Warming and Chicken Little

    The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report on climate change on 9/28. The major news media immediately picked up segments of the report and elaborated them to ridiculous claims. CBS claimed that temperatures would rise more than 200°. ABC predicted many more super storms, like Sandy. NBC predicted the same.
    The nature of man is to fear the unknown. Many children are afraid of the dark, because they can't see what's out there. Rational persons in Massachusetts believed in witches, because of suspected magical powers.
    However, the classic story about fear mongering is the story of Chicken Little. It Is a fable with a couple of morals.
    There are many references to Chicken Little on the Internet, but Wikipedia says Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. Versions of the story go back more than 25 centuries.
      A chick believes the sky is falling when an acorn falls on its head. The chick decides to tell the King and on its journey meets other animals (mostly other fowl) which join it in the quest. After this point, there are many endings. In the most familiar, a fox invites them to its lair and there eats them all. Alternatively, the last one, usually Cocky Lockey, survives long enough to warn the chick, who escapes. In others all are rescued and finally speak to the King. In most retellings, the animals have rhyming names, commonly Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Hen-Len, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky or Ducky Daddles, Drakey Lakey, Goosey Loosey or Goosey Poosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy or Foxy Woxy.
        The moral to be drawn changes, depending on the version. Where there is a 'happy ending', the moral is not to be a 'Chicken' but to have courage. In other versions where the birds are eaten by the fox, the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything you are told.