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.