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.