Summary of Man-Made Climate Change Disbelief

Richard,
     You have a friend who questions your denial of any climate change based upon carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels. He says that since so many scientists, scientific organizations and the federal government make this claim, there must be some truth to the claim that atmospheric carbon dioxide radically affect climate. You have already replied, but I would like to accentuate your reply and add a few comments of my own.
     The answer is simply MONEY! It stems from Pres. Obama's ideology of redistributing world wealth, which means taking money from US citizens and redistributing it to other peoples of the world. The United Nations is also jumped on this opportunity, because it is loaded with representatives of Third World countries, who see the opportunity of increasing .national wealth with money from the US.
    In addition, Pres. Obama is a believer in big government, and big government always requires significant revenues. Since government never makes or sells anything, it's only source of revenue is from taxes on individuals and corporations. As that transfer of money takes place from individuals and corporations, it not only increases the size of government and the power thereof, it also decreases the financial assets of individuals and corporations. In other words, this is also another form of wealth redistribution.
     One of the natural attributes of human beings is to desire a leader to which they can serve allegiance. That is the basis on which kings and emperors developed in previous times. It has carried forward in present time to presidents and prime ministers of countries. With this tendency, there are a great number of people in the US, who demonstrate their allegiance to Pres. Obama, no matter what the facts are for any particular item under discussion.
     This leads to the power of the "bully pulpit", which means that Pres. Obama can address the public on television and automatically obtain public support for anything that he wishes to present, simply because he is the President. However, there will always be people with analytical ability, who will disbelieve at least some of what the President is professing. The farther out from realism that the President professes, the larger will be the number of analytical disbelievers. However, there will always remain a very large number of emotional supporters. Rush Limbaugh calls these people "low information voters".
     In addition to the use of the bully pulpit on a non-analytical public, the federal administration also has the opportunity with its tax revenue to BUY positions on anything it wishes. In the case of carbon dioxide and climate change, it does this with the use of billions of dollars in federal grants to university scientists, and scientific organizations to support the program through the use of "research". These grants of federal taxpayer money go to individuals for specific projects, the outcome of which must be to support the theory that atmospheric carbon dioxide must be controlled. University scientists are human beings and susceptible to human fallibilities. They know where their bread is buttered, and they know that in order to obtain continued grants, they must come up with the answers desired by  the Federal Administration. They tend to rationalize this to actually become believers, in spite of any scientific facts that may be discovered or should be considered to the contrary. In other words, the emotional desire for self-preservation clouds their perspective with respect to true scientific analysis.
  This carries further into the area of propaganda. The "bought" scientists and their organizations recognize that to preserve their income with continuing grants, they must contribute to the bully pulpit of the President by use of their own propaganda techniques. Therefore, they scream and holler to discredit any scientists, who are considered disbelievers.
     Your friend then asks the question that if there are disbelievers, why don't we hear from them? The answer is simple. Once again, it's MONEY! Those persons who are on the "payroll" are much more motivated than those persons of simple scientific integrity. People who have the most to lose will holler the loudest.
     It has been said that the disbelievers of anthropogenic climate change are being paid off by coal producers. It is possible that there's some semblance of truth in this claim, but I could find nothing to support it. Conversely, there is considerable information about the billions of dollars of grant subsidies to scientists through various federal agencies.
  With all that said, there are several references involving scientists, who are not convinced that atmospheric carbon dioxide has any bearing on climate change. The first is a Wikipedia list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
There are four groups of scientists as follows:
*       1 Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections (6)
*       2 Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes   (20)
*       3 Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown   (9)
*       4 Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences   (3)
The above scientists are from various universities and geophysics and astrophysics societies.
  Forbes also has an interesting article entitled, "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority of Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Crisis". Climate Depot says, "SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore". http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
    Global Research says, "Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence". "There is a sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works says, "Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report)  from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore". "The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2008 and 2009, as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and 'inconvenient' developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the 'science is settled' and there is a 'consensus'. On a range of issues, 2008 and 2009 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears.  Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm ; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming;  a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick '; etc.". http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9'FAF4DCDB7
"In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the 'consensus' collapse.  Russian scientists 'rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming'.  An American Physical Society editor conceded that a 'considerable presence' of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate'. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC 'be called to account and cease its deceptive practices', and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is 'settled'.   A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 'showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report'.
  And there are others.
  It is interesting that nobody addresses a simple scientific conjecture. That is, what scientific mechanism can be proposed which could possibly account for only 0.05% carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere affecting climate change?

Climate Change Summary

Open Email to Chairwoman Kay Granger (TX), House Subcommittee State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Congress,
Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
David Vitter, Member Senate environment and Public Works Committee Edward Markey, House Member of Natural Resources Committee

An Associate has sent to me a Climate Change Summary, which I pass along to you for your consideration in combating the Obama Administration's and the UN's efforts to extract money from the US.

 

1.  Climate change is an ongoing process that has been taking place since the beginning of time on Earth, without any input from humans.

2.  Our entire atmosphere can be considered a "greenhouse gas", since without it, the Earth would be uninhabitable, scorching during the day and frigid at night.

3.  Nitrogen  (78%) and oxygen (21%) are the major components of our atmosphere.

4.. Minor components are:

        Argon  0.93%

       Carbon Dioxide  0.04%

       Trace mounts of Ne, He, Kr, Xe, Rn, Co, No, and a few others

       Additionally water vapor can be present at 0.1 to 2.8%.

5.  Thermal conductivity is a term used by scientists to measure the ability of any substance, including gasses, to transfer heat from one place to another.  The higher the value, the more effectively that substance transfers  heat  The thermal  conductivities of nitrogen and oxygen are essentially similar, but in the same order of magnitude, as carbon dioxide and water vapor, which are also essentially similar, but a bit lower.

6. There are no known studies or data to show a cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere and global warming.

7.  There are no known magical properties of carbon dioxide which could be responsible for climate change or global warming.  Given the low concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (0.04%) such a magical property would be required for that to occur.

 

If one considers all these facts, there can be no excuse other than political or monetary objectives, for all the attention attached to carbon dioxide and climate change or global warming. 

UN Attempt to Destroy the US Economy

Open Email to Chairwoman Kay Granger (TX), House Subcommittee State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs,
 Chairman Edward Markey,  Subcommittee International Development  & Foreign Assistance, Economic  Affairs, International Environmental Protection  and  Peace Corps

Dear Chairwoman Granger  and  Chairman Markey,
        An Associate has been  following the meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Warsaw.
       The stated purpose of the UNFCCC is to organize a "complete transformation of the economic structure of the world".
       A new committee called the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage" was created and work on funding is to begin next year. The Green Climate Fund Board is to begin its initial resource mobilization process as soon as possible with rich countries, including the US, to announce how much they will "contribute" by next December when the UN meets in Lima, Peru. The U.S. agreed to prepare biennial submissions on its updated strategies and approaches for scaling up finance ("its contributions") between 2014 and 2020.
       Rep. Granger and Senator Markey, this UN program is a redistribution of wealth on a worldwide basis by a claimed reason of wealthy industrialized countries having created a climate change scenario which is detrimental to world inhabitants. I remind you that this is a hollow claim. There is no credible scientific evidence that industrialized countries have contributed to deleterious climate change through carbon dioxide emissions or any other action.
       Most US citizens are reasonably satisfied with the present economic position of the US compared to other countries of the world. We do not want government mandates to redistribute wealth and become a third world country ourselves. This is not to say that we should not have compassion on the underprivileged, whether they are members of our own US society or other country inhabitants, but it should not be forced upon us. We have a number of private organizations in the US that do good work for the underprivileged of the world. It is not up to the US government to engage in any practice involving a redistribution of wealth.
       I also wonder whether members of Congress are so weak in their belief of US supremacy and are so disinterested in their jobs that they are willing to pass along their responsibility to the United Nations.
       Let's keep the sovereignty of the US intact. While we have difficult internal problems, we resolve these ourselves, and we don't need a higher power other than God to tell us what we should be doing.

Philippine Hurricane and Global Warming

Most of us are familiar with the recent typhoon in the Philippines with resultant tremendous death and property damage. A typhoon is another name for hurricane, and both are categorized as cyclones. A typhoon/hurricane differs from a tornado only in size. A typhoon/hurricane may cover an area of several thousand square miles, while a tornado is usually limited to an area of about ten square miles. The intensity of the two types of storms is measured by maximum wind speed or minimum internal pressure.
United Nations (UN) head Ban Ki-moon says the Philippine typhoon, named Haiyan, was due to climate change. He was quoted as saying, "We have seen now what has happened in the Philippines. It is an urgent warning. An example of changed weather and how climate change is affecting all of us on Earth."
Recall that the UN position on climate change, previously called global warming, results from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is presently at a level of 350 ppm. It is also claimed that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration results from burning carbon containing fuels.
Many have said that Typhoon Haiyan was one of the strongest ever. However, historical records show that Haiyan is the 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach a central pressure of 900 mb or lower. 
There have been 35 cyclones in the last 800 years that have killed more than 10,000 people. Thirty-three occurred with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration below 350 PPM.
Ninety four per cent of the deadliest cyclones occurred with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration below 350 ppm. The worst ones happened during the 1970 global cooling era.
We also have some long-term archaeological data concerning atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures during various interglacial periods. An interglacial period is 10,000 to 15,000 years long. According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during all four prior interglacial periods of the earth's history never rose above approximately 290 ppm. Today the atmospheric CO2 concentration stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial temperature is about 2°C colder than the previous interglacial temperature, even though the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration now is about 100 ppm higher. 

New Task Force on Climate Change Protection

    Earlier this month, Pres. Obama established by Executive Order a task force of local, state, and federal officials to consider strategies for protecting the nation from scorching heat, sea level rise, wildfires, droughts, floods, and storms.
    This is good, but we have to be careful of the usual problem that government does things to excess. In this case, the study is said to be related to climate change, which is not a problem to me, because we have had climate change in the past and will have it in the future, similar to changes in weather. We will not be able to control these changes, but we can be prepared for their effects. The simplest example familiar to everyone is the fact that our houses have roofs to protect against occasional rain and snow.
    Of the six items mentioned above, only two need further explanation. The inclusion of "sea level rise" is done with the implication that glaciers will be melting and ocean levels will rise. That's so much baloney. However, we do need to protect against excessive high tides caused by storm surges and tsunamis caused by undersea earthquakes. The reference also to storms should be specified as windstorms, since floods were previously listed.
    Now comes the bad part. As I mentioned previously concerning government excess, we can't even control weather and yet Pres. Obama wants to control climate. He has the EPA proposing to cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fire power plants. He presumably thinks, for some unfathomable reason that trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have some magical effect on climate.
    The task force will include governors of eight states, 16 local officials and two tribal representatives who are supposed to come up with recommendations in a year to modernize federal, state and local programs to avoid or better protect against climate-related disasters. As long as the task force stays within its bounds to protect against the weather related items mentioned above, we are on safe ground, even though Pres. Obama likes to call them man-made-climate change items.

IPCC Global Warming Fear Mongering

    Global warming fear mongers are heavily at work!
    Yesterday, Tony Barboza of the Los Angeles Times reviewed the latest preliminary report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    The IPCC says glaciers are shrinking and plants and animals have shifted their ranges in response to rising temperatures. As global warming continues through the 21st century, many species will face greater risk of extinction, marine life will shift toward the poles and seawater will grow more acidic. By 2100, hundreds of millions of people in coastal areas will be flooded or displaced by rising sea levels. The arid subtropics will have less fresh water. The global food supply of wheat, rice, corn and other major crops will drop 2% each decade. Extreme heat waves will be especially deadly in urban areas, associated with severe storms, flooding and drought.
    The IPCC says global surface temperature has risen about 1.5 degrees since 1880, and now predict that the planet will warm between 2.7 degrees and 8.1 degrees. Barboza does not mention whether these are degrees Centigrade or degrees Fahrenheit
    For a little converse data, Roy Spencer and John Christie measure global satellite temperatures monthly using satellite data. They use a base of 1981, 32 years ago. In 1997, 26 years ago, global temperature was 0.67°C above the base. In October of this year, the global temperature was 0.23° C above the base. In fact, the chart shows that there has been no increase in global warming in the last 26 years (since 1997). These are very different numbers from the 2.7° and 8.1°, predicted by the  IPCC for the future.
    More importantly, the IPCC makes its predictions on the basis that carbon dioxide is a super greenhouse gas, which inhibits release of heat from the earth to the stratosphere at night and leads to global warming. The IPCC claims that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased significantly over the past 20 years, which is true. However, there is no indication from the data that there is any connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global warming.
    Is also interesting that all of the proponents of connecting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to global warming cannot give any reasonable mechanism by which carbon dioxide is said to perform its claimed disastrous effects.

How Can We Control Executive Orders?

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    Pres. Obama is continuing his program to destroy the American economy and reduce the US to a third world country. His latest program is a resurgence to climate control. His previous efforts have met with no enthusiasm on the part of Congress. So, he is now using the process of executive order.    According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming. The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build "resilience" against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the President's order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger -- and likely at a higher price tag.
    I call this a sneaky process of moving ahead with an undesirable project by looking at a minor favorable aspect. Most everyone believes that we need adequate bridges, and with floods in the news, many, including yours truly, believe in flood control. The catch comes in with the specification of larger and stronger structures. How much larger and stronger? What would be the increased cost? Are they necessary? The obvious answer is that we don't need them. Engineers and architects know what they must do to protect buildings and other structures against the undesirable effects of weather conditions and other calamities. One extreme negative example was in the collapse of the twin towers in New York at the 9/11 terrorist attack. In that case, the towers were improperly designed because of government disallowance to use asbestos to protect the steelwork from fire.
    Other than the recent executive order on structures, Pres. Obama still has a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 17% by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency is working on rules that would impose tougher regulations on coal-burning power plants. The key issue here is that neither the US federal government nor any other individual or agency has ever shown an appropriate cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and climate. To proceed with attempts to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and redesign buildings and other structures for more extreme climate based upon an assumption of more extreme weather variation is completely unjustified.
    I'm calling this to the attention of Congress not only from the point of view that there is no justification for action to prepare for climate change, but more importantly that some procedures or methods must be developed by Congress to control ridiculous projects of Presidents.

Comment on Global Warming Hoax

    I previously wrote on the Global Warming Hoax. One of our Political Advisers has added his comment as follows:

    "This is regard to your manuscriptic masterpiece on Global Warming, which is a sadistic form of Terrorism.  It seems that the Liberal Elite need to have some fearful Phantom Force to fight in order to save the minnows, he-goats and reindeer, so nice and the poor polar bears seen floating on ice.  The Elite seem to have a unique insight in regard to this mysterious omen that threatens our very existence according to them!  It has been two or three decades of days ago they were predicting we would soon face the threat of death by freezing and frostbite!  Since the Elite have nothing on their plate but hate, they must have an ample supply of food stamps, welfare, fright and fear to mesmerize the minds of their masses of dumb asses that don’t know squat and can’t tell truth from who knows what!"

    "It is this sub-minus mentality that elected our notorious wandering star who came from afar, Barack Hussein Obama who promised to ‘change’ our country.  It was his great Spiritual Mentor, Rev. Wright who prayed for the damning of America. The infamous Rev must have more clout than doubt with the Great I AM as He is answering his prayer as I write.   It will be remembered as the Obamanation of Desolation and is indeed the ultimate Enema of Evil!"