Climate Action

The September 29 issue of Chemical Engineering News has an article entitled, "Calls to Climate Action; Global Warming: World leaders assemble at UN Summit as scientists layout data on CO2 emissions".
Silly!
They continue to ignore the fact that no one has ever shown any connection between climate change and CO2 emissions. Why not layout data on baseball scores. They are just as applicable to climate change.
But, I suppose if you holler that the sky is falling often enough, you can get a lot of people to believe it.

More on Man-made Climate Change

Tom Harrison and Bob Carter have written a new article on climate change for the New York Post. The reference is: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/.
They start out castigating Leonard DiCaprio. Wikipedia says DiCaprio is an American actor and film producer.. He is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis. The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” He says, "Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible".
From here on, I will insert some chosen paragraphs from Harrison/Carter's article in the New York Post.

DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.

The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.

The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.

Dr. Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and for some unfathomable reason seems to support the UN's position on climate science. However, he also calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century. He also notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”

Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries. That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?

17 Year Global Warming

Katharine Hayhoe is an Associate Professor in the Public Administration program at Texas Tech University and Director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech. She is one of the most well-known climate scientists. She is included in the 2014 Time100 as a well-known scientist, and she is a lead author for the 2014 Third U.S. National Climate Assessment. 
Last month, Katherine Hayhoe sent out a tweet saying that other peoples' claim of NO global warming in the past 17 years "is a lie [that] just will not die". She then goes on to to show a graph of 17-year data with a positive slope (increase) of 0.5 to 0.6°C.
Dr. Sierra Rayne holds B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry and a diploma in water engineering technology. He has authored over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles in chemistry and environmental science, as well as hundreds of technical reports, preprints, and articles for media outlets.
Dr. Rayne has recently taken issue with Dr.Hayhoe's claim that no global warming in the past seven years is a lie. He does this on the basis of statistical analysis of the data. His extensive explanation appears in the July 26 issue of American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/rigorous_climate_science_is_now_lying.html).
Dr. Rayne says scientist should start using statistical tests when discussing data in public.  Otherwise, they are not illustrating rigorous science and are simply contributing to a poor understanding of science by the public audience.
To illustrate his point, Dr. Rayne plotted 17 randomly generated numbers. The trend line on the graph was down. If they had been global temperatures, it would have indicated a cooling effect. A second plot with 17 other randomly generated numbers showed a trend line increase (hypothetical global warming). A third plot of randomly generated numbers gave a shallow negative trend line; very slightly down. If three sets of randomly generated numbers can give such different trendlines when plotted, it is apparent that the trendlines from those three sets are not statistically significant. It is also obvious that Dr. Hayhoe's plot of 17 global temperatures is also not statistically significant.
Dr. Rayne goes on to explain that statistical significance is measured as a P value. In his first plot, the P value was 0.10. He says that In science the statistical P value must be 0.05, which is 95% certainty. He also says that in the case of issues such as climate change, whereby action would necessitate a near-complete alteration to our entire socio-economic and political structures and relationships, we should be demanding even higher statistical significance, such as a P value of 0.01 which is a 99% probability of the trend not being a result of chance.
I suppose we can excuse Dr. Hayhoe for her negligence in not considering the statistical significance of the trend line on her graph. I am also a scientist and would not have thought of it, but I have an excuse. I was initially trained in science 70 years ago and never took a course in statistical analysis. However, Dr. Hahoe's more recent training would likely have included statistics. If it did, she decided not to use it. Her error is especially egregious when one considers that she has called the global warming dissenters "liars".

Jerry Brown's False Predictions

The Wall Street Journal reported that California Gov. Jerry Brown had a three-day trade mission to Mexico, during which time he tried to tried to make a connection between global warming and immigration. He is quoted as saying, "“We can see how some are fearful of children walking across the border. What will they think when millions of people are driven north from the parched landscapes of a world degraded by intensifying climate change?”
This is typical of a hack politician like Jerry Brown. He is taking a real situation of illegal immigration at our southern borders and connecting it with a pie-in-the-sky theory of global warming. He has done so, because of the accepted disaster of global warming by many uninformed people, who conform to the Chicken Little Theory that the sky is falling.

Global Warming Disbelief

          Enthusiasts for man-made global warming say that the debate on its existence is over. In effect, they say that man-made global warming is a fact and there should be no more discussion about its validity.

          However, Rasmussen Reports says voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.

          Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over.

          I could be egocentric and say that because I have been pounding on the subject of disbelief in man-made global warming for a few years, I’m finally making progress. However, I will give the credit to a logical and informed public.

          Either way, it looks like we’re making good progress in limiting government’s attempts to push down our throats a climate control program which would assure that the US quickly becomes a second rate political and financial power.

BBC Censoring Climate Dissenters

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a government-owned public communication system. Its stated main responsibility is to provide impartial public service broadcasting.

It has recently been criticized, presumably by leftist global warming alarmists, of allowing too much air time to those in opposition of the British government’s position on global warming.

The BBC has responded by a program to reduce air time by dissenters. The justification is said to be a matter of fairness based upon numbers. It is said that since there are so many more proponents of climate control than dissenters of global warming, the majority of their time should be with the proponents.

The BBC can take this high-handed approach in the UK, because it has no constitution allowing freedom of the press, such as we have in the US. The danger, of course, is that the majority proponents of man-made global warming could be wrong, and the BBC would be helping to influence the general British public of traveling down an incorrect road. The BBC action can also be interpreted as another form of censorship.

Nine-Year Climate Cooling in the US

Forbes Magazine reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. 
NOAA previously established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005.
For those who may point out U.S. temperatures do not equate to global temperatures, the USCRN data are entirely consistent with – and indeed lend additional evidentiary support for – the global warming stagnation of the past 17-plus years. While objective temperature data show there has been no global warming since sometime in the last century, the USCRN data confirm this ongoing stagnation in the United States also.
What do global warming enthusiasts have to say about that?

More Ice in Antarctica

MailOnline.com, a UK newspaper, reports that America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.
It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.
What do the global warming enthusiasts think about that?

Lack of Specificity in the Globall Warming Controversy

USA Today reports that the US Supreme Court blocked the EPA from requiring permits for greenhouse gas emissions from new or modified industrial facilities. However, this still allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industries already required to get permits for other air pollutants. These generally are the largest power plants, refineries, and other industrial facilities. The net result is that the latest Supreme Court ruling has little effect on EPA’s power to control carbon dioxide g emissions from most industrial operations, which includes power plants supplying electricity to the public.
Is there anything wrong with this? Perhaps so. Let’s take a somewhat deeper look.
Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1963. Wikipedia says it was designed to control air pollution on a national level.
Congress amended the law in 1970 to require comprehensive federal and state regulations for both stationary (industrial) pollution sources and mobile sources (cars). The 1977 Amendment introduced National Ambient Air Quality Standards and areas involved. The 1990 Amendment addressed acid rain, ozone depletion and toxic air pollution, established a national permits program for stationary sources, and a few other things.
The key point here is that when we are talking about pollution, we are talking about chemical substances, which are specific in composition and identity. Only in the 1990 Amendment did Congress come close to a clear definition of pollutants.
Ozone is a distinct chemical compound. Whether it’s an air pollutant is only slightly conjectural. It is a normal part of the environment at high levels of the atmosphere. At ground levels, it can be considered a pollutant, because it has deleterious health effects on humans.
Acid rain is not a chemical compound. It is an obvious pollutant, but trying to regulate it as acid rain is not practical. One must look at the chemical bases. Coal is contaminated with sulfur. When it is burned to produce heat for generation of electricity, it is emitted as sulfur dioxide, which then oxidizes further in the atmosphere. Finally, rain delivers it to the earth surface as sulfuric acid, which we call acid rain. Any legislation involving acid rain, should then not address direct control of acid rain, but rather sulfur dioxide emissions from coal burning operations.
With that background, we can consider that in 2007 the US Supreme Court judged that greenhouse gases qualify as an air pollutant, even though their impact isn't as direct as others. But here, the Supreme Court has fallen into the same trap as Congress had previously fallen into; namely, “generality”. Why not be specific? What chemical compounds qualify as greenhouse gases? What is the definition of air pollutant, and which specific chemicals can be considered air pollutants?
In fact, the EPA and the Supreme Court are talking about carbon dioxide as both a pollutant and a greenhouse gas. However looking at the Clean Air Act and its various amendments, I can’t find any indication that Congress intended for carbon dioxide to be judged a toxic pollutant or a greenhouse gas, with the negative implications thereof. The term “greenhouse gas” seems to be an invention or reinvention of the EPA and apparently has been adopted by the Supreme Court.
Let’s first take up the toxicity of carbon dioxide. For all practical purposes, it is not considered a toxic gas which affects the metabolism of human beings as do hydrogen cyanide or carbon monoxide. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance, as is water. Because carbon dioxide is not breathable, it does not mean that carbon dioxide is toxic. Water is also not breathable. Both can lead to suffocation, but if water is not considered to be a toxic substance, why would one consider carbon dioxide to be toxic?
Let’s now consider greenhouse gases, which seem to be either an invention of the EPA or some pseudoscientist at a university on the government payroll through a grant. The term “greenhouse gas” was apparently invented, or at least reinvented, as part of the Obama Administration’s desire to substitute so-called replaceable energy, such as solar and wind, for fossil fuels.
The theory goes that burning fossil fuels give off carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and leads to global warming. But, what about other gases in the atmosphere, such as the major constituents of nitrogen 78% and oxygen 21%?
The global warming theory handles that by claiming those gases are not greenhouse gases. In so doing, the fact is ignored that they are insulators to the passage of heat, as measured in the laboratory.
Another way to look at it is that on an astronomical basis, the primary atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen on earth is actually responsible for reasonable living conditions. Without those gases, daytime temperatures would be a positive few hundred degrees and nighttime temperatures would be a negative few hundred degrees. Therefore, nitrogen and oxygen qualify as greenhouse gases, impeding the loss of heat during nights.
Since the Supreme Court says that the EPA has a right to control carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, should not the EPA control also emissions of nitrogen and oxygen? Nitrogen is routinely lost to the atmosphere in cryogenic air separation plants. Oxygen is routinely lost to the atmosphere through its use in breathing devices in hospitals.
This may sound kind of silly with respect to nitrogen and oxygen, but no more silly than controlling carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The answer to avoiding differences of opinion on controls lies in a better understanding of what should be controlled. This can be done on a completely specific basis involving individual chemicals. The EPA is familiar with this in other aspects of its regulatory program. There’s no reason why carbon dioxide should be handled differently when the EPA bans the use of benzene as a toxic chemical compound.
Since the EPA has invented mechanisms to further a particular political persuasion, and the Supreme Court has fallen into the trap of considerations based upon EPA definitions, it seems up to the Congress to develop another amendment to specifically consider carbon dioxide as a directly toxic chemical or an indirect hazard to mankind through its EPA claimed unusual properties as a super greenhouse gas, negatively affecting conditions of life for mankind.

US Agency Fudging Global Temperature Data

          A British newspaper, the Telegraph, reveals that the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA­) has been fudging the global warming data. A section of NOAA, known as the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), has been replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming, when in fact it has been cooling since the ‘30s.

          If one takes the graph using actual temperatures measured at the time, there is a clear cooling. If one takes the graph using the USHCN computer adjusted temperatures, there has been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

          Fudging data to make a political point is obnoxious, especially when conducted by a government agency that is supposed to be dealing in scientific fact.

          In this case, the data fudging only casts another shadow on the reliability and integrity of US government operations. In fact, are not really much interested in an observation of whether there is global warming or not. The main heat source to the earth is from the sun and that is variable. It is probable bad global warming could occur without any input by man. Archaeological data prove that point.

          The key issue is whether carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have any significant effect on global warming. The answer is “no”. No one has ever shown a connection between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperatures.

          The whole matter of man-made global warming from carbon dioxide is until now a hoax perpetrated on the public by government for political advantage. The mere fact that USHCN has fudged the global temperature data is another indication that we cannot trust government in its CO2/global warming claim.

Another Firing on Global Warming

          There has been another firing for disbelief in the mainstream of man-made global warming.

          Dr Caleb Rossiter - an adjunct professor at American University, Washington DC - has been fired by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) after publicly expressing doubt about man-made global warming. Dr. Rossiter had been with the IPS for 23 years.

          His sacking is being related to the persecution last month of Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish meteorologist and climatologist who decided to resign his position at the Global Warming Policy Foundation after being harassed by climate alarmists for his "incorrect" views on man-made climate change.

          But there are some significant differences.

          Wikipedia says the IPS is considered a left-wing organization by some. Harvey Klehr, professor of politics and history at Emory University, in his 1988 book Far Left of Center: said that IPS "serves as an intellectual nerve center for the radical movement, ranging from nuclear and anti-intervention issues to support for Marxist insurgencies". Joshua Muravchik, a former scholar with the American Enterprise Institute has also accused the institute of communist sympathies. Furthermore, it has been accused by the FBI of being a "think factory" that helps to "train extremists who incite violence in U.S. cities, and whose educational research serves as a cover for intrigue, and political agitation."

          With that background, I wonder why Dr. Rossiter maintained a relationship with the IPS for 23 years, unless he had similar sympathies. He probably did and only recently started to make a change in his own philosophy, when faced with some scientific facts.

          However, it is not unreasonable for the IPS to have terminated Dr. Rossiter. Clearly, it is unreasonable for any organization to have employees who are distinctly opposed to the policy line of the organization, whatever one may believe concerning the legitimacy of the policy line.

Consorts Consortium Against Obama's Carbon Dioxide Tax

Pres. Obama is pushing globally to introduce carbon pricing, through forums such as the G20. In the US, he has spent billions of dollars in subsidies for renewable energy, such as wind and solar, in order to kill off the use of fossil fuels primarily in production of electricity. Without any scientific justification, other than the ridiculous "forcing" theory, he has castigated carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. His restrictions on fossil fuel use in the US is being carried out through the EPA.
However, Obama's global pushing to tax carbon dioxide emissions has caught the attention and rejection of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. As covered in the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr. Abbott believes that Pres. Obama's ambitions with respect to taxing and restricting carbon dioxide emissions is economically unsound and unjustifiable. He is now trying to obtain a consortium of countries with views similar to his own and contrary to those of Pres. Obama.
At present he is trying to consolidate the five Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and New Zealand to counter recent moves by the Obama administration to lift the pace of climate change abatement via policies such as a carbon tax or state-based emissions trading. It is a calculated attempt to push back against what Australia and Canada already see as a left-liberal agenda in favour of higher taxes, unwise interventions to address global warming, and an unhealthy attitude of state intervention.
This is obviously a move in the right direction and for the right reasons. Unfortunately, Mr. Abbott does not understand the scientific basis of his proposals. He apparently believes that carbon dioxide is a significant global warming agent and believes that its emission from burning fossil fuels should be controlled by regulation, rather than taxation. This actually is contradictory to his cause, if one of his intentions is to avoid unnecessary economic worldwide deterioration. The fact is that carbon dioxide is not a significant greenhouse gas to increase global warming. Carbon dioxide emission should be unrestricted, which will allow use of cheaper fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Latest IPCC Report on Global Warming

According to Cheryl Hogue, in the April 21 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the essence of the United Nations April 13 report on global warming is that the average global temperature must not increase above 2°C from preindustrial levels by the year 2100.
From there on, no consideration is given to normal changes in sunlight radiation received by Earth, as has been historically indicated through the various ice ages. In other words, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC} will talk only about global warming caused by miniscule changes concentrations and concentration changes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, when the major effect on global temperature is caused by other natural factors. There are such things as variations in the sun's radiation output over many years, distances of the Earth from the sun, and several more known and many unknown factors. The IPCC mentions only that a decrease in the sun's radiation could reduce global warming, but the IPCC considers this an impossible task at this time. Therefore, the only action that man can take at the present time is to control carbon dioxide emissions, which affect I have already said is miniscule.
Greenhouse gases are necessary for continued life on Earth. Nitrogen at 78%, oxygen at 21% and carbon dioxide at 0.05% all make a contribution. Obviously, those gases in greater concentration, such as nitrogen and oxygen have much more significant effect on a greenhouse effect than does a minor gas such as carbon dioxide.
However to push the carbon dioxide emission control agenda, it has been necessary for pseudoscientists to develop a gobbledygook technique, which basically attributes magical properties to carbon dioxide. They call this magical property "forcing" and have developed mathematical formulas to prove it, in an unjustifiable way.
"Forcing" as a word seems to have no relation to the pseudoscientists' basic idea, in which carbon dioxide is a perfect absorber of heat on a temporary basis and a perfect reliberator of heat. An infinite amount of heat radiating from the surface of the earth is absorbed completely by carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, and then released later back to Earth as heat. In other words carbon dioxide is a perfect insulator in the atmosphere. It will allow no loss of heat to the stratosphere. However, since we know that nights are colder than days, there must be some loss of heat to the stratosphere. That loss is only because of the relatively small concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even though it is the perfect insulator, or perhaps it may not be so perfect as an insulator.
What's wrong with the "Forcing" theory? Plenty! Start with the fact that there is no laboratory data to show that a quantity of carbon dioxide will not allow the passage of heat. In fact, the properties of gases listed in the Air Encyclopedia of Air Liquide show that while carbon dioxide is twice as good a heat insulator as oxygen and nitrogen, it is by no means the perfect insulator. In comparison, while a cup of coffee will still be hot after an hour of being in a thermos bottle, it will be cold a week later. A thermos bottle is a good insulator but not perfect. Carbon dioxide is a better insulator than nitrogen and oxygen, but if you have only an insignificant concentration (0.05% in the atmosphere), it doesn't do much insulating.
It is Interesting to me that these relatively simple concepts and facts are easily discussable without the use of high-powered mathematics, which only tend to intimidate the uninitiated and cloud understanding the natural laws of heat transmission. Even more interesting, is the fact that while I have opened myself to discussion on these points over a few years of email and blog presentations, no scientist has been willing to engage in the discussion. It's very much like Benghazi. We did the right thing and we won't talk about it. Or, the National Security Agency's collection of personal telephone data. We are doing the right thing and will not talk about it. That sort of attitude may have passed many years ago, but in the present age of communication ease, it is only apparent that the nonresponders are only afraid to respond for fear that their position will be jeopardized.

Congress Must Fix the EPA

Open email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,
The Washington Times says The Obama Administration, through use of the EPA, proposes to cut emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity producing plants by 30% by the year 2030.
Sixteen years from now is a long time, but that's probably necessary in order to refit fossil fuel burning plants with carbon dioxide capture equipment. This will obviously increase the cost of electricity significantly; let's guess 20 to 30%.
The sickening thing is that carbon dioxide is not a noxious gas. It is a normal constituent of the atmosphere, and is used by plants in their growth. Even more significant is the fact that carbon dioxide has no effect on climate change, contrary to the claims of the Obama Administration. All efforts to prove that it does have been unfruitful. Ridiculous theories of "forcing" developed by pseudoscientists have no justification, as they ignore the thermal resistances of gases.
But the question is, "Why do I address this email to you, Speaker of the House?" Simply because the EPA is your baby. You and your associates set it up when you developed the Clean Air Act. You set up the EPA and gave the President full power for implementing it in any way he wished. We are now reaping the whirlwind. But, all is not lost.
You and your Congressional associates have caused the problem. It is now your duty to fix it.

Pentagon Assistance in Destroying the Economy

According to the Washington Times, the Pentagon 10 years ago was concerned with the problem of how it should react in its defense responsibility, when faced with possible climate change. The Pentagon contracted with a firm called Global Business Network to produce a report, which anticipated future climate changes that might require actions by the Department of Defense.
The Global Business Network issued its report to the Pentagon 2003. The consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year. Obviously, none of this has occurred.
In their defense, the consultants now say that their projections were only what "might" have happened. Even so, the Pentagon and many other organizations accepted the predictions as probable fact. The Pentagon still appears to operating on the basis of the consultant's predictions.
Pres. Obama has cut the defense budget by $1 trillion. However even with that large reduction of budget, the Pentagon continues to operate on the basis of a worst possible climate change scenario. For example, it buys jet fuel from outside sources at tremendous overpricing compared to petroleum-based fuel. It is developing strategic military engagement in the Arctic area based on the presumption that Arctic ice is disappearing. It says it focuses on energy efficiency (see conflict with above) and carbon dioxide emissions, which have no connection with climate change. It avoids new construction and expansion in areas where the consultant's report indicates significant sea rise levels. All this frivolity on a budget which has already been reduced by $1 trillion? What's happening with weapon development, which is one of the main objectives of the military? Is that being cut?
Why would the Pentagon be doing these obviously stupid things? Simple answer. The Pentagon works for Pres. Obama, the Military Commander-In-Chief. It is part of the Obama Administration program to castigate carbon dioxide as a radical climate changer, which then can justify a carbon dioxide emission tax and other controls, leading to higher energy costs for the average citizen and the total objective of redistribution of wealth.

Retired Military Officers, the Pentagon, and Climate Change

It’s a tangled web, with the usual money as the background.
The Washington times says, “Sponsors of Pentagon’s alarm-raising climate study could benefit from action”. If you like puzzles, read the article yourself at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/sponsors-of-pentagons-alarm-raising-climate-study-/
I have waded through it and get the following:
CNA Corporation, a private non-profit research and analysis organization located in Alexandria, VA. conducts research and analysis for military and government agencies to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. national defense efforts. Note that it also has an opportunity to influence political decisions, with recommendations that may not be subjective.
On May 13, CNA Corp. issued an alarmist global warming report that calls on the Defense Department to ramp up spending on what it calls a man-made problem. Remember that CNA Corp. is an advisor under contract to the Pentagon. With the issuance of the report, and consistent with the Commander-in-Chief’s position on man-made global warming, the Pentagon immediately adopted it as its own. The key point is the matter of “ramping up spending”.
It also turns out that a number of retired military officers have entered businesses related to supplying information and hardware intended to combat global warming. For example, The CNA advisory panel is headed by retired four-star Army Gen. Paul Kern, who sits on the board of directors of a company that sells climate-detection products to the Pentagon and other government agencies. At least two other board members are employed in businesses that sell climate change expertise and products.
Climate change has become big business. The U.S. government alone increased spending by more than $100 billion from 2003 to 2010. Nations around the world are buying sensors, imaging technologies  and airborne monitors. That means huge contracts for consulting, studies and technologies to analyze the Earth and its environment.
Gen. Kern, the CNA advisory board chairman, is also on the board of directors of Exelis Inc. (formerly ITT), a broad-based defense contractor that is in the climate change business. It sells climate-detection systems to the Pentagon as well as to private industries.
This month, SpaceNews.com reported that Exelis Geospatial Systems won two climate-related contracts worth a potential $200 million — one for a NASA monitoring system, the other for Japan’s Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite.
Gen. Wald, another advisory board member, heads the largest single business entity within Deloitte, the giant international accounting and consulting firm. Gen. Wald runs its defense unit, and one of his portfolios is energy consulting. Deloitte itself has set up a consulting business that it says helps clients with “climate change and carbon management.”

One of the CNA report’s main recommendations: “In addition to DOD’s conducting comprehensive assessments of the impacts of climate change on mission and operational resilience, the Department should develop, fund, and implement plans to adapt, including developing metrics for measuring climate impacts and resilience. The Department should place a greater emphasis on the projected impacts of climate change on both DOD facilities and associated community infrastructures.”
CNA Corp. itself is in the climate change business, a check of its client lists shows.  One of its major foundation customers is the Energy Foundation, the same group that financed the CNA military advisory board climate study. It is a global warming activist and is pushing a tax on carbon emissions.
So, the real question is whether there is some justification for promoting the man-made climate change devil, with its associated expenditure of large sums of taxpayer money, much of which falls into the hands of private pockets?
The CNA report is 100 percent climate change advocacy, stating as fact that global warming has caused flooding and wildfires. It uses phrases such as “more intense storms” and “more frequent and severe storms.”
“Globally, we have seen recent prolonged drought act as a displacement of populations, each contributing to instability and eventual conflict,” the CNA said.
Yet a number of scientists — and the United Nations — have looked at the history of storms and concluded that they cannot be blamed on climate change.
Roger Pielke, an environmental scientist at the University of Colorado who has studied decades of U.S. storm data, told a Senate committee last year: “It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
Jeff Kueter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit that assesses scientific issues that affect public policy, said the report does not adhere to CNA's creed of “absolute objectivity. “The report is a self-fulfilling prophecy,” said Mr. Kueter, who believes climate change impact on national security is tenuous. “The authors begin with the belief that the impacts of climate change are negative, and from that only bad consequences can flow. The report is not an objective treatment of the validity of the scientific claims or the veracity of the connections between environmental issues and security concerns.”
Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global warming advocate, said in its latest report that there is “low confidence” in any long-term increase in cyclone and hurricane activity. It also said there is “low confidence” in increased tornadoes and hailstorms.
David Kreutzer, an energy economics and climate change researcher at the Heritage Foundation, said the CNA report is based on some projections that have proved way off base. The report paints a picture of a future pocked with climate disasters, which is likely to be true because we have always had climate disasters,” He said, “Even with no increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes — no increase is what the IPCC says we have observed so far — the future will have plenty. The military should be ready for them but should not blame them on climate change.” He said, “The CNA relied on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models that have proven embarrassingly inaccurate. In fact, instead of providing narrower and more certain projections, the projections have been getting further and further from the actual observed temperatures.” “While climate change has not led to security problems, climate policies have diverted huge chunks of the food supply to biofuels, driving up basic food prices and likely aggravating political instability in poor countries,” Mr. Kreutzer said.
So, what is the relevancy of the above?
There is some justification, but it is loaded with abuse.
Climate change is with us, and we have to recognize it and adapt to it. This will require investments in infrastructure modification, military defenses, etc., but this doesn’t have to be done all at once. Climate change moves slowly, and we can make slow adaptive changes.
We have already wasted billions of dollars in inhibiting use of fossil fuels and promoting development of renewable energy, such as wind and solar. It doesn’t mean that we may not eventually need such renewable energy, but it should not be forced. There will likely come a time when we are at a crossroads; where we can see that the cost of renewable energy is no greater than trying to get the last barrel of oil out of a depleted reserve. That will be the time to make the change. I don’t buy more Coca-Cola when I have 10 cases already in the garage.
With respect to retired military officers latching onto a good thing in preparing for climate change, and let’s not forget weather which is even more important, I have no objection. Only stupid people ignore opportunities. But, when opportunities are generated based upon deceit and fraud, we have a real problem. The fact is that there is no connection between carbon dioxide and climate change, but it is impossible to prosecute those who are basing windfall profits on the claim that it is.

Kerry Distorts Data on Global Warming

Secretary of State John Kerry recently addressed an audience on global warming in Mexico. 
According to CNSNews.com, Kerry said, "Temperatures in Europe and in Vietnam were “unprecedented” and broke “every record that’s ever been seen.” He also elaborated.
However the facts are:
The temperature at the Vietnam airport on Wednesday was 36°C.. In 1926, the Hanoi temperature was 42° C.
The highest temperature in Europe on Wednesday was 32° C.. The highest temperature in Russia was 44° C in 2010. In Germany, 40°C in 1983. In Italy, 48° C in 1999. In Turkey, 49° C in 1993.
If our Secretary of State uses this kind of distortion of data to make an emotional point, how can we trust him in things that really matter?

Carbon Dioxide: The Present Day Witch

In 1692, things were going poorly at Salem, Massachusetts. There was an outbreak of smallpox, the Indian wars were not going well, and old feuds and disputes within the congregation contributed to general unrest.
In order to alleviate accusations of their own ineptitude, the leaders of Salem publicly attributed the difficulties to Satan. However, that was not sufficiently pragmatic for the people, and it was further perverted to individuals acting on behalf of Satan. By the time the public unrest quieted and leaders still retained their power, 20 people had been killed as witches.
In 2014, society is much more sophisticated, but the old dodges still work. Things are not going well. There is high unemployment, and various federal government scandals concerning Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service, the Veterans Administration and the National Securities Agency. In addition, the federal government continues to increase its size and power to the disadvantage of the populace through higher taxation, etc.
in order to alleviate accusations of its own ineptitude, the Obama administration has invented another witch; carbon dioxide. With the help of government paid scientists, the carbon dioxide witch program continues to be advanced. Unlike 1692, the higher present degree of sophistication requires some justification for the "witch" designation of carbon dioxide. This is accomplished by issuing a myriad of so-called scientific papers from government paid scientists. The purpose is obviously to convince the general public of the carbon dioxide "witch" status in order to further the federal government's program of emission control, with associated taxation, all leading to a lowering of the US economy and redistribution of wealth.
Do you want to fall for the Obama Administration's development of carbon dioxide as a witch? The general population of Salem did so with individuals in 1692.

Recant of Global Cooling by Peter Gwynne

In 1975, Peter Gwynne, a well-known science writer, was quoted in a Newsweek article as predicting catastrophic global cooling.
Breitbart News says he has now recanted and joined the global warming crowd. The general news media is making a big issue of this.
However I don't consider this particularly significant, because global cooling or global warming is not the issue. The issue is whether increases in carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere have anything to do with climate change. The subject is not discussed in any practical way in the recent articles, and therefore to me the whole matter is irrelevant.

Kerry's Climate Fiasco Speech

According to the Weekly Standard, Secretary of State John Kerry made the commencement address at Boston College. He discussed climate change.
In his discussion, Kerry made a speculation. What if 97% of the scientists were wrong on the connection between climate change and carbon dioxide, but we had still followed the programs presently recommended by the UN and the Obama administration?
He said, we would have put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative sources; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence.
Let’s take Kerry’s so-called advantages of following the Obama Administration program one of the time.
We would have put millions of people to work unnecessarily transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative sources, when they are not now needed. Simply put, a boondoggle operation putting people to work to do jobs that don’t need to be done. It’s the standard procedure of digging a hole in and filling it in. It makes work but nothing is accomplished.
The Obama administration program on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants has nothing to do with particulates. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Particulates are small solid particles, usually soot or ash. It is unhealthy to breathe air containing these particulates, and we already have programs in place to limit the amount in the atmosphere.
Eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants does nothing to give cleaner air and more health. Carbon dioxide is a natural composition of the atmosphere. It has no negative effect on breathing, unless it is in high concentrations and limits the supply of oxygen to the body. Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to the atmosphere do not come anywhere near that danger point.
New and renewable alternatives to fossil fuels will not give us energy independence. The Obama administration has been forcing solar and wind energy for many years through subsidies and loan guarantees with no significant success. The reason is that fossil fuels are a significantly cheaper source of energy, and we have generated special drilling techniques, including fracking and enhanced oil recovery, such that we are on the road to real energy independence, without any significant help of a few percent from wind and solar.

Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change

Open Email to Bill O'Reilly:

Dear Bill,
I saw your presentation on climate change last evening. Congratulations for bringing this to public view. A second congratulations for the obvious conclusion that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, as being response for climate change, is a hoax.
If you will bear with me, I will go through a rather simple explanation of how greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide affect Earth temperatures.
The sun sends radiation to the parts of the earth exposed to the sun during the day. The radiation can pass through the Earth's atmosphere unimpeded. Much of that radiation is converted to heat as it strikes the earth. At night, there is no incoming sun radiation and no heat generation on earth. The previously accumulated heat then passes through the atmosphere to interstellar space. However, the presence of greenhouse gases, including nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are insulators and slow down the loss of Earth's heat at night. We need these greenhouse gas insulators to retain some heat until the resumption of radiation from the sun in a new day. Without the greenhouse gases, Earth's temperature would fall to 100 or more degrees Fahrenheit below zero and make the planet unlivable.
Of three atmospheric greenhouse gases under consideration, carbon dioxide has about twice the insulating capacity compared to nitrogen and oxygen. The insulation properties of these gases has been measured in the laboratory and are reported as thermal conductivities in the Gas Encyclopedia of Air Liquid.
It is also obvious that the degree of insulation resulting from any insulating material is related to its quantity. For example, the usual amount of fiberglass insulation in a house is 4 to 6 inches. If one puts in only an eighth of an inch of insulation, he is wasting his time, since the insulating effect will be almost nothing.
On the same basis, let's say that the insulating capacity of carbon dioxide is 2, while the insulating capacities of nitrogen and oxygen are each 1. The greenhouse effect th is en from nitrogen, would be it's concentration in the atmosphere, which is 78 %, times 1 to equal 0.78. For oxygen, it is 21% times 1 equals 0.21. For carbon dioxide, it is 0.05% times 2 equals 0.0010. Add the three to total 0.991. The collective greenhouse component for nitrogen and oxygen is then 0.990÷0.991 = 99.9% greenhouse effect. The greenhouse component for carbon dioxide is 0.001÷0.991 = 0.1% greenhouse effect.
Why should we get excited about an atmospheric carbon dioxide component which has only one thousandth greenhouse effect compared to the other gases of the atmosphere?

Save On Energy: A Misnomer

On May 5, 2014, SaveOnEnergy.com issued a story by Seth Bornstein, entitled, “Final Fed Climate Report Will Present Dire Picture”.
Mr. Bornstein refers to a shortened version of the previous report issued in 2013, probably by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He also mentions an 840-page report, which presumably is the shortened version.
Mr. Bornstein makes various quotes from individuals. He does not specify whether they were making the quotations within the report or whether the quotes were subsequently obtained from the Obama Administration.
More significant is the content of Mr. Bornstein’s writing. He goes into great detail about the disastrous effects of climate change. He makes absolutely no connection between climate change and carbon dioxide emissions from commercial installations, which has been the continuing theme of the IPCC and adopted by the Obama Administration.
Interestingly, SaveOnEnergy.com is an organization presumably dedicated to helping individuals find the lowest-cost energy. Both the IPCC and Obama Administration programs involve taxing carbon dioxide emissions from commercial installations, which ultimately leads to higher energy costs for everybody. I suppose it doesn’t make any difference to SaveOnEnergy.com whether they help you find the lowest energy costs under the present conditions or whether they help you find the lowest energy costs on the conditions which would be imposed by the Obama Administration and which would be at least 20% or so higher for everybody.

More Global Warming Fear Mongering

USA Today says, "Devastating droughts in the Southwest, ruinous floods in New York City, killer wildfires in Colorado, intense heat waves in the Plains: These are the some of the disasters that are being exacerbated by global warming, and problems will continue to worsen in the decades to come, according to a massive federal climate report released Tuesday at the White House."

There are a couple of questions involving the above statement. The first is whether there were not devastating floods, droughts, etc. in the thousands of years before mankind even made an impact on earth? The answer is "yes" supported by historical data of the Earth’s climate.. This being the case, there’s really nothing new for me to worry about. It’s been around for a long time.

. The Second question is why we are suddenly being faced with this horrendous problem as proposed by our federal government? The obvious answer is it’s a political endeavor with the usual leftist intention to obtain control over the populace and extract money from it. 

Restricting Dissent in Global Warming Alarmism

Three weeks ago, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a leading scientist in the global warming activist group signaled his defection to the climate skeptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Wikipedia says The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, who’s stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic [man-made] global warming.

The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

However, he has just resigned from the GWPF board. In his resignation letter, he said the following:

"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expected such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen."

"It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expected anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under this situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time."

Wikipedia says McCarthyism means the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

Prof. Bengtsson is accusing the global warming alarmist group of McCarthyism in his persecution.

Coldest Average US Temperature This Year since 1890

The Washington Times reports through Real Science that this year has been the coldest year on record so far in the US.

The data come from the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which has 1218 observing stations across the 48 contiguous United States. The USHCN has been developed over the years at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Real Science shows the highest and lowest temperatures for the year from 1890 through May of this year. This year, the lowest average temperature was 2.8°C, whereas it had previously never been below 2.9°C.

However on the warm side, the high average temperature this year was 7.5°C, whereas it had never been below 7°C. In summary, we have seen through May of this year more variation in continental US temperature than any previous year since 1890.

Real Science also shows that two thirds of the continental US had lower than average temperatures, while one third had higher than average temperatures.

My point in this writing is not to refute or support any claim of global warming or cooling from the reported USHCN data. The US is only a relatively small part of the global landmass.

Even if the data were on a global basis, it should not be interpreted that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere had any significant effect on the temperatures. This was not mentioned in the Real Science article, but is always an underlying consideration with the Obama Administration’s persistent unscientific efforts to connect atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations with global climate change in an effort to justify control of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

As Sen. Marco Rubio has said, there is high skepticism concerning any man induced climate change. Climate change has previously occurred from natural causes and will continue 

Senator Marco Rubio on Climate Change

Open Email to Sen. Marco Rubio:

Dear Sen. Rubio,

The Wall Street Journal quotes you as being skeptical about man induced climate change. The actual quotation was, ""I don't agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing."

May I congratulate you on your perspicacity? The fact is that in the burning of fossil fuels, heat is generated, which contributes to the heat load placed on the earth by the sun. However, the amount of heat from fossil fuel burning is insignificant compared to heat from the sun.

The main hoax perpetrated by the UN, the Obama Administration, and various pseudoscientists, who are speaking from the point of desire to remain on the "payroll", is that carbon dioxide generated from the burning of fossil fuels is causing climate change. That theory has been in place for many years, such that many observers now consider it as fact.

However, I have been asking for almost the same amount of time for some specific scientific data which would show that carbon dioxide has such unusual properties as to trap heat on earth and inhibit it from flowing to the stratosphere. The best that the pseudo-scientists could come up with is that carbon dioxide molecules absorb heat, thereby retaining it in the atmosphere and allowing it to dissipate back to the earth. The obvious fault with this theory is that there are so few carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere compared to molecules of nitrogen and oxygen that they are bound to have an insignificant effect.

The pseudoscientists are basically saying that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acts as a blanket to deter the passage of heat from the earth to the atmosphere, in the same way that one places fiberglass insulation in house walls to deter heat loss from the interior in winter. It works only if you put in enough fiberglass insulation. A 10th of an inch of fiberglass does essentially nothing. Similarly, the low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no significant heat insulation effect. A further deterrent to that theory is that laboratory measurements of heat insulation properties on gases, show that carbon dioxide is not grossly different from nitrogen and oxygen, which are the major components of the atmosphere.

Please keep up your skepticalness and if necessary ask the man backspace-induced climate change supporters to come up with some significant scientific justification for their position and stop continuing pouring money down a rat hole.

　

　

Climate Control

Open Email to House Speaker Boehner:

Dear Speaker Boehner,

            One of my Political Associates emailed me that 83% of Bill O'Reilly's viewers believe that the climate control attempt by the White House is A Total Scam, and that I should sleep well tonight. The reference was http://www.billoreilly.com/poll-center.

            I replied as follows, "Sounds good! Maybe we're making some progress."

            "I have never been concerned about disastrous effects from man-made climate change. I am concerned about the damage done by cases of extreme weather, and that's what I think Obama should be addressing. More studies on tornadoes and how to control them. Studies on the possibility of controlling rainfall, or in its absence of progress some real infrastructure work on dams and reservoirs to control flooding."

            As a separate, but related item, the Daily Caller reported, "White House adviser John Podesta told reporters Monday afternoon that Congress could not derail the Obama administration’s efforts to unilaterally enact policies to fight global warming.

            Podesta said that the president was committed to using executive orders to pass regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit carbon dioxide emissions that they say cause global warming.

            “They may try, but there are no takers at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” Podesta told reporters at a Monday press conference at the White House." The reference is http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/05/podesta-congress-cant-stop-obama-on-global-warming/#ixzz31Ehsi431.

            Podesta is likely correct that the president can use executive orders to pass regulations under the Clean Air Act limiting carbon dioxide emissions. However, every operation of the Environmental Protection Agency requires money, which is authorized by the House of Representatives. I'm sure that the House can limit the amount of funding to the EPA, such as to make it unreasonable for the President to spend available funds in that control.

            Speaker Boehner, this is important. Shutting down all coal burning electricity production plants will have a disastrous effect on the economy. I would have no objection to this under normal circumstances if there was some justification, but there is none. No one has ever shown that there is a relationship between global warming and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

Texas Tech Scientist Hayhoe on Climate Change

Open Email to Editor in Chief Lubbock Avalanche Journal:

Dear Editor,

Your Friday, April 25 issue featured headline, "Tech scientist on Times 100 list". This was followed by a collaborative story by Blake Uirsch, with the sub headline, "People/Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe named among magazines top influential people". The story describes the Times 100 list as that of people who are using their ideas, visions, and actions to transform the world and have an effect on a multitude of people. In short, they are people who are effective communicators. The subjects of their communications need not be necessarily advantageous for world progress.
It is on that last basis, that I challenge the position of climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, as she effectively touts that significant disastrous global warming is caused by the activities of mankind.
In the article, she is quoted as saying that 97% of climate change scientists agree that climate change is happening due to the choices people make every day. She goes on to say that, "The simple truth is that the scientific debate is over and now it's time for all of us to take action".
I don't doubt that Katherine Hayhoe is a very intelligent person, but many intelligent persons have been known to be wrong. In this particular case, Dr. Hayhoe has apparently not properly looked at the history of naturally induced climate change, nor considered a true scientific analysis of the Earth's heat balance.
If she had looked at the historical data on climate, she would have found great variations over centuries even prior to any possible effect from mankind.
If she looked at the heat balance of the earth, she would have found that the infinitesimal increase in available heat from the burning of fossil fuels is insignificant with respect to Earth's heat input from the sun.
The only possible position for argumentation is the claimed, by some scientists, absorbance of heat by the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. That position is only theoretical and could be resolved as factual or not by some simple laboratory work, which somehow seems to escape the 75% of said scientists who are convinced of significant climate change from fossil fuel burning.
In summary, Catherine Hayhoe appears to be a great communicator but her scientific capability can be sorely questioned. In my judgment, she now falls into the category of pseudo-scientists, which are those who have had good scientific training, but their emotions and subsequent rationalization, usually based on money, have reduced their scientific integrity to approximately zero.

Texas Tech Climate Scientist Hayhoe on Climate Change

Open Email to Editor in Chief Lubbock Avalanche Journal:

Dear Editor,

Your Friday, April 25 issue featured headline, "Tech scientist on Times 100 list". This was followed by a collaborative story by Blake Uirsch, with the sub headline, "People/Climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe named among magazines top influential people". The story describes the Times 100 list as that of people who are using their ideas, visions, and actions to transform the world and have an effect on a multitude of people. In short, they are people who are effective communicators. The subjects of their communications need not be necessarily advantageous for world progress.
It is on that last basis, that I challenge the position of climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, as she effectively touts that significant disastrous global warming is caused by the activities of mankind.
In the article, she is quoted as saying that 97% of climate change scientists agree that climate change is happening due to the choices people make every day. She goes on to say that, "The simple truth is that the scientific debate is over and now it's time for all of us to take action".
I don't doubt that Katherine Hayhoe is a very intelligent person, but many intelligent persons have been known to be wrong. In this particular case, Dr. Hayhoe has apparently not properly looked at the history of naturally induced climate change, nor considered a true scientific analysis of the Earth's heat balance.
If she had looked at the historical data on climate, she would have found great variations over centuries even prior to any possible effect from mankind.
If she looked at the heat balance of the earth, she would have found that the infinitesimal increase in available heat from the burning of fossil fuels is insignificant with respect to Earth's heat input from the sun.
The only possible position for argumentation is the claimed, by some scientists, absorbance of heat by the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. That position is only theoretical and could be resolved as factual or not by some simple laboratory work, which somehow seems to escape the 75% of said scientists who are convinced of significant climate change from fossil fuel burning.
In summary, Catherine Hayhoe appears to be a great communicator but her scientific capability can be sorely questioned. In my judgment, she now falls into the category of pseudo-scientists, which are those who have had good scientific training, but their emotions and subsequent rationalization, usually based on money, have reduced their scientific integrity to approximately zero.

Methane: Another Control on Fossil Fuels

The White House and the EPA are on another control kick. This time, it's controlling methane emissions.
According to Jeff Johnson in the April 7 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, methane is responsible for 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The other 85% is presumably carbon dioxide.
Again we have a lack of scientific data. The White House and the EPA are presumably guessing that a methane molecule can absorb a very large quantity of heat, as opposed to the major gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen), which presumably are unable to absorb heat. Do we have data on this? I haven't seen anything.
The other aspect is that the methane concentration in the atmosphere is only 0.002%. How about a little quantitative analysis of these data? How much heat can a methane molecule hold? How many molecules of methane are there at an atmospheric concentration of 0.002%? Without that information, we are spinning our wheels.
Assuming that we like spinning our wheels, we can go on to the other claims. Of the total methane in the atmosphere, 35% comes from agriculture and 28% from oil and gas operations.. 36% comes from natural sources, such as wetlands, termites and the oceans.
The agricultural sources are animals, animal waste, rice production, agricultural waste burning (nonenergy, on-site), and savannah burning. Not much can be done about the passing of intestinal gas (flatulence) from animals and humans. It would also be difficult to control methane emission from animal waste on a multitude of farms and the inherent culture of rice production.
Similarly, methane release from natural sources is equally uncontrollable.
This leaves control of methane release from oil and gas operations. Ideal! The White House and the EPA want to inhibit production of oil and natural gas wherever possible, in order to favor green energy. What better way to inhibit oil and gas production than to say operators must control their release of methane beyond reasonable economic limits?

Global Warming R&D

I recently commented on the latest IPCC climate change report, as reported in Chemical and Engineering News by Cheryl Hogue.
In the last part of my essay I suggested that since federal agencies are already doling out billions of dollars to university professors for research and development, how about doing some R&D work on confirming two theories, which continue to be used by the IPCC in global warming promotions. The first theory is that the capacity for absorption of heat by carbon dioxide molecules is so great that it overcomes the negative aspect of being only 0.05% in the atmosphere. The second theory is that the molecules of the major constituents in the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are unable to absorb heat.
I did not intend to imply that I would apply for a federal grant, but one of our Political Advisers carried it a step further by making the following tongue-in-cheek comment, "You cannot get funding for your ideas because your thesis is all wrong.  Your research has to be aimed at proving global warming and the supporting politics behind that.  Knowledge is not what their after, just propaganda."

The Old Saw on Global Warming

We're back to the old saw on climate change (previously called global warming)! Cheryl Hogue has another article "Affirming Impacts of Climate Change" in the April 7 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
It starts out by quoting a new United Nations report as follows: "Around the globe human-caused climate change has affected farming, water supplies and echo systems on land and in water."
Climate is only a long-term manifestation of weather. We all know that weather changes on a regular basis. For example, it may be sunny the next two days and then it may rain, or we might have a tornado thrown in. Similarly, long-term weather (climate) also changes. We may have 50 years of a cold snap or 100 years of a heat spell. These climate changes have been going on for millennia, even before man burned any fossil fuel other than a little wood for his cooking fire. Therefore, how can the UN or anyone say there such a thing as "human induced climate change"? There's no obvious connection. Why not "cattle induced climate change", or "fish induced climate change"? Cattle and fish are living organisms. They move around. Have digestive capacities, which liberate gases, solid and liquid waste, and generate heat.
Christopher Field, who cochaired the IPC working group that prepared UN report, said, "with high levels of warming that result from continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions, risks will be challenging to manage." Sen. Barbara Boxer says the IPCC report "adds a tremendous sense of urgency for Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution".
Where do they get this idea that carbon dioxide is a bugaboo? The best that I can find in the scientific literature is articles which assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will absorb heat from the earth, thereby not allowing it to pass through the stratosphere, and thus contributing to global warming.
There is never any mention about the heat capacity of a carbon dioxide molecule, or how many molecules it would take to have any real effect. Let's also remember that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only 0.05%. The idea also is that the major atmospheric gas constituents (nitrogen and oxygen) do not absorb heat in the same way that carbon dioxide does. May I have some laboratory proof confirming these theories? Federal agencies dole out billions of dollars to university professors for research and development. How about a little research and development on the questions I'm asking?