Climate Control

Reduce Expenditures for Climate Change Research

2012-01-17T08:24:00.000-08:00

Congress passed the Global Change Research Act of 1992 to collect information on man's contribution to global climate change. Thirteen departments and agencies were specified for the program. Consistent with all budgetary matters, Congress continues to fund the program annually. The last announced funding a few years ago was $2 billion.

The current political accent is on the economy, including size of government and its cost. Such discussion has been going on for many months with apparently little progress. But we have to start somewhere. Some may say that $2 billion is a pittance. However there are thousands of these pittances in our federal government operations and these involve trillions of dollars.

Why not start cutting this one? Why does the US have responsibility for the determining any possibility of man's contribution to global climate change? If this work seems desirable, would it not be more appropriate to relegate it to the United Nations, to which we already pay substantial sums?

The UN Climate Change Program Is Dying

2011-12-29T13:00:00.000-08:00

We now have a report on the latest UN meeting at Durban concerning climate change. Cheryl Hogue reports in the December 19 issue of Chemical and Engineering News.

The so-called "big change" is that greenhouse gas emissions, say carbon dioxide, will no longer be limited to industrialized countries as required by the original Kyoto Accord. It will now include all major CO2 emitters.

I don't see the difference. The concentration seems to be on China, which is a major emitter, because of its size, but it is also an industrialized country. If you don't believe that, check various retail stores for goods made in China.

Democratic Sen. Kerry says the US will lose now lose its long-held position that it will not abide by the Kyoto Accord, because China does not. Kerry seems to have the presumption that China will now be in agreement, which is not necessarily fact.

The original Kyoto Accord involved two stages of CO2 emission reductions. Canada, Japan, and Russia were part of the Kyoto Protocol, but they have now announced that they will not sign up for the second round of CO2 emission reductions. In addition, Canada announced that it is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol completely. It is said that Canada has done little to cut its CO2 emissions and may be susceptible to a fine. I say "hooray" for Canada. They should not be cutting CO2 emissions, but rather using all forms of energy in order to aid in developing an improved way of life for its citizens. It would be silly of Canada to actually pay any fine that might be placed on it.

Frank Maisano, an energy specialist representing utilities and refineries has said that path to a treaty established in Durban will be meaningless and nobody will follow through on it. I strongly hope this prediction will come true.

Let us remember that CO2 does no harm in the atmosphere with respect to any climate change. The whole idea of CO2 emission control is a political maneuver to equalize worldwide financial assets, through a tax program called Cap & Trade.

Improved Sea Transportation Route

2011-12-22T08:06:00.001-08:00

Jyllian Kemsley has an article entitled, "Connecting Ice and Air" in the December 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. It is about a scientific probe concerning the role of sea ice in atmospheric chemistry as the Arctic warms. This seems to me to be a reasonable study, providing it doesn't cost "too much". I should also point out that I am not disputing warming of the Arctic and the reduction in ice coverage, nor am I disputing that there is such a thing as climate change. However, I do dispute any implication that the activities of man has had any significant effect on this climate change.

With that aside and unrelated to the basic study,, I am impressed with the shrinkage of ice coverage, leading to opportunities in sea transport.

According to Wikipedia, Roald Amundsen found a connection between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans north of Canada in the early 1900s.. However until 2009, Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Climate change has now reduced the Arctic pack ice making this waterway more navigable.

It should be noted that, other than this Northwest Passage, the only connections between the Atlantic and Pacific are through the Panama Canal and around the southern end of South America. The Panama route has its limitation in the size of ships if can handle, although the capacity has recently been somewhat expanded. The southern route has the disadvantage of increased distance, which extends the time of delivery.

We hear many predictions of doom from the effects of climate change. Here is one effect that could be significantly economically helpful.

The Climate Change Fear Mongers Are Still At It

2011-12-21T11:53:00.000-08:00

The November 28 issue of Chemical and Engineering News reported that new talks would begin on that date in South Africa concerning the curbing of greenhouse gas emissions. They really mean reducing CO2. They also plan to brace the world for the worsening impacts of climate change, which are detailed in a recently released UN report.

I have not seen the UN report, but the C&E News article includes a picture with a caption that says "A new report says storms like Hurricane Irene are likely to become more intense but not more frequent". It would be interesting to see how they could make this prediction. I also note that in the subsequent issue of C&E News on December 5, there is no mention of the results of the meeting. Hopefully, it was a bust.

"Negotiators", and I use the term loosely as reported by C&E News, are trying to get China to reduce its CO2 emissions, but China has wisely not agreed. The US continues to sit on the fence by saying that if China doesn't agree, it will also not agree. While I don't like the rationale, at least it is progress in going nowhere on limiting CO2 emissions.

For those who may not have been following the aspects of CO2 emissions, the claim is that CO2 leads to global warming, with disastrous effects. However, the fact is that there are no data to support this theory. The basis is not so much an environmental concern but rather a government interest in obtaining additional tax revenues through a carbon tax. Another negative for even considering it is that it would cost trillions of dollars to control CO2 emissions unnecessarily from power plants and other major sources, at a time when the US is very strongly in deficit, with a completely unbalanced budget.

Refrigerant Gases and Global Warming

2011-12-09T14:04:00.000-08:00

In the early use of refrigeration, the process used ammonia and sulfur dioxide, for compression and decompression to obtain cooling. These gases were somewhat obnoxious and were subsequently replaced by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). However, someone later developed the theory that CFCs were reacting with ozone in the upper stratosphere and it was necessary to preserve the ozone as a protective barrier to damaging radiation from the sun at the Earth's surface. We will not now discuss the merits of this theory, but it led to modification of the CFCs, with the intention of using gases less reactive to ozone. These modified gases are now being criticized as contributing to global warming. See Cheryl Hogue's article in the December 5 issue of C&E News.

As is usual with most problems, a mathematical analysis usually brings the problem into perspective, with respect to its significance. Let's do this with refrigerants to determine whether their contribution to global warming is significant.

The weight of the Earth's atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, is estimated to be 5.5x10 E 21 grams. The "E 21" means there are 21 zeros following the 5.5. The molecular weight of air is approximately 30 g per mole. Therefore, the number of moles of air in the atmosphere is 5.5x10 E 21 divided by 30, or about 2x10 E 20.

A mole of any substance is made up of 6x10 E 23 molecules. Therefore, the number of molecules of air in the atmosphere is 2x10 E 30 times 6x10 E 23, or about 1x10 E 44.

In 1991, usage of CFCs for refrigeration and blowing agents was 6.8x10 E 11 grams. Assume the worst-case for the atmosphere, which is that all the CFCs entered the atmosphere. The molecular weight of the most common CFC (dichlorodifluoromethane) is 120. Therefore, the number of moles of CFC entering the atmosphere was 6.8x10 E 11 divided by 120, or about 6x10 E 9. Again converting to numbers of molecules, 6x10 E9 times 6x10 E 23 gives 36x10 E 32, or 3.6x10 E 33.

We now divide the number of air molecules in the atmosphere by the number of CFC molecules entering the atmosphere in 1991. 1x10 E 44 divided by 3.6x10 E. 33 gives about 1x10 E 11. In other words, there were 100 trillion times more air molecules then CFC molecules in the atmosphere in 1991.

The theory of global warming is that some molecules are greater reflectors of heat than others. The global warming effect is said to occur by those molecules not allowing heat to escape from the Earth's surface.

Assume the worst-case scenario. That is, molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere allow complete passage of heat from the earth's surface to interstellar space, while molecules of CFC completely block this passage of heat.

Let us now also make an analogy that we have a net containing 100 trillion holes (pretty big net!). One of the holes is completely blocked. Is that enough to have any significant effect on what passes through all the remaining holes?

Considering the Nitrogen Cycle for Weather Control Was Inconclusive

2011-10-13T13:48:00.000-07:00

In the October 3rd issue C&E News, there is a nicely reported article by Rick Erickson. It is reported that at the August meeting of the American Chemical Society in Denver the group came to grips with how to incorporate the nitrogen cycle into future climate-change models and policies.

For those not familiar with the nitrogen cycle, it involves a very small portion of the 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere. The cycle involves bacteria converting small amounts of this nitrogen into chemical compounds which are used by plants to facilitate growth. When the plants die, other bacteria convert the chemical compounds back into atmospheric nitrogen.

The ACS group has extended the standard nitrogen cycle to include nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. I'm not sure how they came about this rationalization. However, there's no doubt that very small concentration of these chemical compounds do exist in the atmosphere. The origin may be from actions of lightning and some release to the air by bacteria.

There was the usual mishmash of opinions at the ACS meeting. Some claimed advantages for each of the chemical constituents, while others claimed disadvantages for the same constituent. As expected, the overall conclusion was inconclusive, in regard to any of their effects on weather.

The group discussion involved so much minuscule inflammation, that it appears the main aspects were completely ignored. With respect to global warming, these three constituents contribute parts per million concentrations to the total atmosphere. Since global warming is primarily a matter of the effectiveness of the gas in allowing passage of incoming solar radiation versus restricting heat radiation into the atmosphere, such low concentrations are bound to be insignificant. Perhaps they have some sort of magical powers, yet to be determined.

The bottom line is good news. All of this confusion tends to throw cold water on any attempts to control weather, which would be disastrous in this already weak economy.

Another Great Delay in Curbing CO2 Emissions

2011-10-06T13:34:00.001-07:00

In the September 26 issue C&E News, there is an excellent article entitled, "EPA Stalls on CO2 Rule s". Quoting from the article, "EPA has backtracked from its scheduled release of rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electric utilities. Instead EPA said in a statement it will issue the proposal "soon"."

This is good news, but the best news would be that EPA would give up this proposal altogether. Trying to control CO2 emissions from power plants would be a disastrous undertaking in view of the tremendous cost and the obvious fact that it would be completely unnecessary. There has been no information that CO2 has had any detrimental effect on our health, economy and particularly climate. All negativity has been speculation.

The Department Of Energy (DOE) Unjustly Criticizes CO2 Emissions

2011-10-01T15:48:00.000-07:00

The September 5 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Greenhouse Gas Versus the Economy". The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that the first time in more than 20 years, CO2 emissions grew more than the GDP did last year. The article says that the EIA is an independent agency in the Department Of Energy (DOE). Since they all work for Obama how can they be independent?

Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.

I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.

Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.

The Idea of Controlling Climate through CO2 Emissions Is Dying

2011-09-29T12:24:00.001-07:00

In the August 8 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Commitments are Running Out". The subtitle is "Possibilities For New Global Climate Treaty Are Slim", which is good news.

The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.

I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.

Rep. Neugebauer's Position on CO2/Climate Change

2011-07-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

Rep. Neugebauer was previously asked for his position concerning the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change. I have had a personal response from one of the Randy's staff members. She says they are working on a revision of their CO2/climate change form letter.

Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:

"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.

Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."

With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.

I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.

Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change

2011-07-07T14:10:00.001-07:00

Randy,

I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.

Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."

May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?

Congress Must Control the EPA on Carbon Dioxide Emissions

2011-07-07T13:00:00.001-07:00

Open letter to Rep. Neugebauer.

Randy,

There has been a lot of confusion on who can control carbon dioxide emissions from various industrial operations, such as generation of electricity from coal burning power plants. Some individual States, Federal Trial Courts, and Courts of Appeals have previously claimed this right.

However, the US Supreme Court has put an end to that controversy. It concluded that regulating carbon dioxide is a job which Congress reserved for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act.

This is both good and news. In organized society, we need to know who has responsibility for any legal aspects. Designating a specific organization is the good news. Designating the EPA is the news.

We know from much previous analysis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere have no significant effect on climate change, but the EPA does not accept that fact. This happens for political reasons. It is the intention of the Obama Administration to develop alternate energy sources (solar and wind) and reduce dependence on oil, and apparently on coal as prime energy sources. We don't know why the Obama Administration has decided on this objective. It seems inconceivable that Obama would intentionally destroy our economy and our society. It is more conceivable that he would use this to develop world socialism through redistribution of wealth, with a taxation process.

The EPA is an agency that operates under the direction of the Obama Administration. Obama is the boss. He develops the rules to follow, and the EPA and its employees are supposed to be good soldiers and follow those rules. This is as it should be in any organization. Collective support and loyalty to a particular program are paramount to the continued existence of an organization. This is true whether it's on a corporate level or in government. Unfortunately, it has its downside. One example is the support of the German people to the Nazi government during World War II, leading to mass extermination of millions of Jews. This is an extreme example, and it's quite possible that employees who are not morally convinced concerning objectives of an organization have the option of lying to themselves for benefits and salary or leaving the organization to pursue other endeavors. We don't know which it is with the EPA and its employees, probably a little of both.

However, the real control lies in Congress. Congress set up the EPA. Congress can take down the EPA. Congress can also specify certain actions that the EPA is allowed to pursue.

Randy, you are a member of Congress. It's up to you and your associates to have the EPA work under a set of rules which will not destroy our economy and society.

New Industrial/Socialist Complex to Fleece Individual US Taxpayers

2011-07-04T07:48:00.000-07:00

The global warming hucksters are still after your dollar. They want to redistribute wealth, if there is anything left after they first bleed you.

The topic has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". It was found that Global Warming was a little too specific. It was directly connected with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase Earth temperatures and cause massive devastation. That fear mongering has been pretty much ridiculed, based on the lack of science logic to support it. However the idea has not been completely discarded and is still supported by new imaginative terms such as "Radiative Forcing", which no one can really give a clear picture of what it actually is. Even the U.S. Congress has started to question global warming as related to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In addition to changing the name of the topic, the hucksters have now developed a very clever approach. That is to obtain the support of major science industries, who will petition Congress for climate change (global warming) regulation. We will then be back to CO2 emission control, taxing, installing unnecessary emissions capture equipment, and subsequent redistribution of wealth.

This is not really very difficult to do, since the science industry would gain a lot of business through production of chemical control products machinery and construction, whether the objective is justified or not. These are business decisions, and in industry businessmen make the company decisions. Scientists in industry only make recommendations, and they generally tend to support the business leaders, who also control the salaries.

However, the global warming hucksters still use a somewhat devious approach. They ask industry whether industrial philosophy of flexibility, rather than rigidity, will help guarantee that a company will remain in business. You know the obvious answer to that one. It's "yes". The second question is, since climate change is an established fact (one day it's cloudy, the next day it is not), would it not be helpful to know more about climate change and how to control it. The obvious answer is again "yes".

The third question is would you support government research, to establish more information on climate change and allow it to help you in developing new products and protecting the longevity of your business. The obvious answer is again "yes". In this case the affirmative is based on a simple decision that it will cost the companies nothing. All they have to do is holler at Congress, which they been doing anyhow. Congress will listen, because industry is a good source of their campaign funds.

If this thing comes to pass, it will be an unnecessary waste of assets not only in continuing ridiculous grants from government agencies, such as NSF, to academic institutions for "research" to support the fallacy. More importantly, the tremendous waste in building unnecessary CO2 control operations will accelerate the bleeding of the already jeopardized taxpayer.

The only defense against this onslaught is an informed public which actually has the voting right to congressional seats and to convince Congress that this right will be used, in spite of any massive propaganda advertising by an Industrial/Socialist Complex.

Reference: C&E News June 27, 2011, page 13, Climate Change by Marc Reisch

Red Herring on Climate Change

2011-05-28T12:12:00.000-07:00

In the May 7 issue of C&E News, Mitch Jacoby reports on a new polymer to capture CO2. CO2 has various uses, among which are carbonation of soft drinks, fracturing to increase oil production, and a raw material in chemical manufacturer.

The basis of the article relates to reducing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which has been said to negatively affect climate change. The article does not say that laboratory studies have shown carbon dioxide is only slightly more efficient than nitrogen and oxygen as a greenhouse gas, but because of its low concentration in the atmosphere, it has basically no additional greenhouse effect.

The composition of the polymer is insignificant. It will have the usual medium cost per pound of chemical. Stability of the polymer for continued reuse has not been determined.

It is said that the polymer selectively removes carbon dioxide and nitrogen from a mixed gas, with about 30 times more selectivity for carbon dioxide than for nitrogen. The component concentrations of the mixed gas were not mentioned. Since the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is only about 200 ppm, will the selectivity still be 30 to 1?

There is some discussion on using the polymer in membrane form, but a membrane application is only of value if there is restricted pass-through of one gas versus another, with the secondary factor that there is actually no gas absorption by the membrane. This is not the case with the new polymer. In fact, it is stated that the high temperature necessary to de-adsorb CO2 from the polymer reduces the effectiveness of the coal-fired operating plant by about 30%.

The present technology of CO2 capture from a mixed gas, such as electricity power plant emission, is use of an aqueous amine solution, with heating to release the adsorbed CO2. Use of the new polymer will only be practical, if the combination of polymer and hardware costs, with recycle ability and release mechanisms giving a total cost per pound of CO2 less than presently available in the standard amine process.

The Futile Capture of CO2 Persists

2011-05-17T13:50:00.000-07:00

The May 2 issue of C&E News has an article on CO2 capture.

The article says that carbon dioxide is related to climate change and that the rising level of atmospheric CO2 is widely regarded as one of the most pressing environmental concerns of our age. This is obviously an opinion based upon no facts that I have ever seen, and very different from what I personally believe.

Stuart Haseltine, a geoscientist at the University of Edinburgh, says that capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power plants has the potential to decrease global emissions of CO2 by some 20%. So what? Why do I want to decrease global emissions of CO2 by 20%? It doesn't do any harm. No one has ever proven scientifically that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any significance to climate change. This is merely a game to justify grant money for additional research. It is also intended to justify additional revenue to the federal income by taxing CO2 emissions. Justin Song, a specialist in catalyst and energy related materials at Penn State, says that coal-fired power plants emit 1500 megatons of CO2 per year. Is that supposed to impress me? How much CO2 is emitted by all human beings and animals in a year? How many molecules of water in all the oceans?

CO2 is not a poison. In high concentrations, it can deprive a person of obtaining enough oxygen through breathing. This is also true of nitrogen and argon, which are present in the atmosphere. However, we are not talking about that kind of maximum concentration. We are talking about parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Eliminating that side issue, the drum beaters are really concentrating on the theory that minor concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere affect climate. It is likely true, because the CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So is nitrogen and oxygen, and argon, and water vapor. In fact, we need all of these greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to normalize Earth temperatures. Without the ability of these gases to insulate against loss of heat, nighttime temperatures on Earth could fall to almost absolute zero in the neighborhood of -200°C.

The high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere protect us from those radical temperature changes. The very small concentration of CO2 has a minimal effect on the whole.

I'm not opposed to capture of carbon dioxide, if it is worth capturing. Oil and gas drillers are said to be using a new technique of increasing production of oil and gas by a fracturing process, which uses carbon dioxide. The cheaper the CO2 source, the better. In all likelihood, capture would be from a high concentration source or some mixture that needs purification. Natural gas normally contains some carbon dioxide, which should be removed in order to make the remaining methane and ethane more effective as fuel sources. If we can take that carbon dioxide out of the natural gas and use it in fracturing to produce more natural gas, so much the better. However, the key point is not to confuse ourselves into thinking that the major consideration is to remove carbon dioxide from the environment. It is not necessary to do that. Various living plants have been naturally engineered to do that job. In the process, those plants also produce oxygen, which we need as humans for our own metabolism.

Let's get off the kick that carbon dioxide is detrimental to climate change or anything else of practical significance. Nature has already handled that matter. If we want to do something practical, let's get on with building flood control devices. There will be a constant amount of rain falling on the Earth each year. Unfortunately, it is not evenly distributed, nor is the distribution always the same.. We need to protect ourselves against the detriment of floods. We cannot control the amount of rain or its distribution. We can build flood control devices.

Environmental Organization and White House Cooperate to Destroy American Wealth Through CO2 Taxation

2011-05-11T08:51:00.000-07:00

In the April 11 issue of C&E News, there's an article entitled "Congress Splits on EPA CO2 bill". In this latest C&E News article, Fred Kraut, President of Environmental Defense Fund characterized the legislative efforts as an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act.

What he was actually saying is that efforts of Republicans in the House and some in the Senate to limit the power of the EPA with respect to enforcing any regulation that CO2 has a pollutant should be controlled. The subterfuge in this statement is that the environmental group believes coal burning power plants should be shut down to the disadvantage of the general public with respect to availability of power and high prices of the remaining power.

This is consistent with my present understanding that environmental organizations are generally subversive in their efforts to reduce the economic and social power of the United States.

The White House supported the Democrats in the Senate for their position of not passing any regulation to reduce the power of the EPA. This is also consistent with Pres. Obama's policy of redistributing US wealth on a worldwide basis through taxation of CO2 emissions.

New Book on Global Warming

2011-04-03T12:57:00.001-07:00

The March 28, 2011 issue of C&E News has a book review by Jovana J. Grbic. The book is entitled, "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg.

This is my commentary on both the review and the book. Since it is a review of the review, it is third hand and may be susceptible to some errors from lack of facts and interpretation of the original work.

Basically, Mr. Lomborg says that there is great exaggeration in attitudes concerning the effects of the global warming discussion. Some persons strongly deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Others strongly believe in its existence and predict dire consequences. Mr. Lomborg takes the position that anthropogenic global warming does exist but is neither inconsequential nor dire.. He does not specify how much anthropogenic global warming exists. He estimates that if the $$20 trillion, which is proposed to fight anthropogenic global warming, is actually spent, the global warming reduction would be only 0.1°F. I don't know where or how Mr. Lomborg gets his figures. Perhaps they are in his book.

I generally agree with Mr. Lomborg that there is anthropogenic global warming. Even though he acknowledges global warming at a level lower than those who have radical claims and predict dire consequences, he appears to believe that it is somewhat higher than I do. I claim it is insignificant.

I base my conclusion on laboratory results which show that the passage of infrared radiation through carbon dioxide is only slightly more impeded than passage through either nitrogen or oxygen. I further point out that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if doubled from its present value, would be so low as to impede heat radiation from the Earth to only a negligible extent. This procedure seems to have been ignored, even though it is standard practice in determining R values of building insulation materials.

Another Questionable Condemnation of Carbon Dioxide

2011-03-24T14:54:00.001-07:00

The January 10 Issue of C&E News had an article entitled, "Monitoring a Troubling Trend". The article is on ocean acidification and assumes acidification has been occurring and is still in progress.

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.

I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.

With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?

All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.

We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.

I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.

My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.

Merchants of Doubt

2011-02-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

The January 17 Issue of C&EN has a book review by Gavin Schmidt. His review is entitled, "Sowing Seeds of Doubt". The book he reviewed is entitled, "Merchants of Doubt".

In his review, Gavin Schmidt says, "Scientists such as ourselves are not immune to self-delusion, and even the brightest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking for rigorous logic when the science points to conclusions that uncomfortably conflict with our world view". This caught my attention and possible relevancy to the topic of "Climate Change", which previously was called "Global Warming". I read Gavin's whole article, but I did not read the original "Merchants Of Doubt".

I came away somewhat confused. Who are the merchants of doubt? Gavin refers to an example in the original work whereby a handful of scientists obscured the truth on health issues of tobacco smoke. Are these supposed to be the "Merchants of Doubt"? By my logic, they are not. They were supporting a myth that there were no health issues related to tobacco smoking.

Contrarily, I am a "Merchant of Doubt". Although I never gave it much thought during the period I was smoking, I never was a merchant of doubt on the health issue. Anyone else who opposed smoking as a possible health problem, was in my judgment a merchant of doubt at that time. In other words, anyone who goes against a generally accepted viewpoint is more logically consider a merchant of doubt.

I also read recently in the Retort a very-well written article by Amanda Strickland on the life of Lavoisier. Lavoisier was an old-time French nobleman, who engaged in scientific work among other things. During his era, there was a generally accepted theory that when things burned, they gave off a material called phlogiston. Apparently, Lavoisier did not initially contradict the phlogiston theory, but in his work he found that when he burned phosphorus, the weight actually increased. How could that be? The phlogiston theory said that after burning, the weight should be decreased. While it took many years, the phlogiston idea was finally debunked as a product of imagination.

We now return to climate change. Several scientists developed some time ago the theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels such as coal, was causing global warming. While this situation was somewhat similar to the phlogiston theory, it is much more complex. During the phlogiston era, the idea just sat there. There was no financial support from government or private individuals to perpetuate it. Contrarily, the CO2/climate change gained power because of its economic importance. The federal government saw an immediate opportunity to gain new revenue by taxing the CO2 bad guy. To build on this and ultimately convince the American public of the need for CO2 control and the related aspect of tax revenue, various departments of the federal government issued grants to scientists to perform additional supporting "scientific" work.

As Gavin Schmidt has said, "even the highest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking". In this case, the motivation to support global warming was to gain federal money for laboratory development, salaries, etc.. The way that persons fall prey to wishful thinking is through motivations, such as money. This is not to say that all scientists have been deceptive when they work in this area. It only means that they have been duped into scientific prostitution by federal funds.

With all of the subsequent "scientific" work performed by these climatologists, I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the notion that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, which is radically changing our environment. I continue to be open to receiving such data, which would legitimize the claim but have received nothing to date. Scanning various reports from climatologists have made one thing clear. None ever face the direct problem, but skirt the edges with a load of gobbledygook, presumably intended to confuse news reporters, congressional officials, and the public at large.

Returning more directly to "Sowing Seeds of Doubt" and "Merchant of Doubt", we need such merchants in our society. Without them, we will all fall off the cliff like lemmings into the sea. There is already talk of ecological engineering, of how we can change climate through variously induced procedures involving distributing certain chemicals in the atmosphere. These are ridiculous notions which would cost untold billions of dollars in waste, on top of what is already being wasted on ridiculous "scientific research" supported by taxpayer dollars.

At one time, the general consensus of the public was that the earth was flat. This view was held for a long time, but eventually was displaced by scientific evidence of an independent nature. How would it have been if the US government had decided to spend billions of dollars maintaining the myth and then subsequently adding other billions of dollars in futile efforts to make the earth round? There were merchants of doubt at that time, among which was Galileo. We still need merchants of doubt.

Global Warming is Here!

2011-01-13T07:22:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
(keep reading)

Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!

Valuable Carbon Dioxide

2011-01-08T12:45:00.001-08:00

EIN News says, "Carbon Dioxide, the Bane of Environmentalists, Is in Demand in the Oil Industry. The Obama administration views carbon dioxide as a pollutant that warms the earth, and it imposed new regulations at the beginning of the year to begin to control CO2 emissions. But to Texas oilmen, carbon dioxide is a useful - and scarce - commodity that is vital to extracting hard-to-reach oil reserves. (nytimes.com)".

Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.

No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.

I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.

Climate Change Historian or Environmental Activist?

2010-12-30T15:20:00.001-08:00

Sarah Everts is a C&EN reporter, apparently stationed in Berlin. In the September 20, 2010 Issue of the C&EN, she has an article entitled "Naomi Oreskes. The subtitle says, "A Science Historian takes on climate-change skeptics and fights off their attacks".

Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.

Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.

Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.

However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.

Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.

In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.

Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.

Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli Must Investigate Possible Fraud In Global Warming Grants

2010-12-10T11:35:00.001-08:00

There has been considerable controversy concerning investigations of possible fraud by academic individuals receiving government grants involving the subject of global warming.

Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.

The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.

Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.

The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".

Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.

On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.

The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.

When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.

The Continuing Fraud of Climate Change

2010-12-04T09:54:00.001-08:00

In its latest issue (11/29/10), Chemical and Engineering News has an article entitled, "Low-Octane Climate Talks". It reports on a two- week United Nations meeting in Cancun, Mexico. C&EN says expectations for the Cancun meeting are restrained, which is why it is reported as "Low-Octane".

In spite of that negative comment, which would tend to classify the meeting as unimportant, it has a couple of very significant aspects.

Cancun, Mexico is a vacation resort. Forget the drug wars in the border towns between Mexico and the US. Cancun is absolutely a vacation resort. Why a two-week meeting, when the subject could have been discussed in a couple hours or a day at maximum? It was a vacation junket at primarily US taxpayer expense.

The Cancun junket is an example of autocratic government and its hangers-on. Government, whether US or United Nations has found in climate change a beautiful opportunity to fleece the American public through use of fear that dire consequences will result unless government is given a blank check to control the situation.

The magnitude of such fraud makes any other fraud picayune by comparison. Top-level government administrators have seen the opportunity to use climate fear as an instrument by which to extract more power for themselves and additional funds through taxation from the general public. To accomplish this, however, a well-contrived series of operations has been necessary.

The main aspect has been to solicit support from so-called respected segments of the population. To do this, government supplies scientists, through monetary grants, funds to conduct so-called research on climate change. In fact, the grants are merely bribes to assure that subsequent grants will keep coming, providing the "scientists" come up with the right answers. Government interprets right answers as dire consequences, unless we control carbon dioxide emissions, give money to poor countries with expected flooding from rising seas, redistribute world wealth, they etc.

It should be noted that no funds are ever distributed to conduct research concerning carbon dioxide as a heat insulator compared to other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen. No consideration is given to the very low concentration of carbon dioxide compared to those other gases. This is as it should be, the fund donor wants information to support his position. He is not about to supply funding for positions which would be contrary to his desires. Money is a tool. It is supposed to be doled out in a manner where it will do the most good for the donor, and in this case the federal government, through taxation and power.

In a similar manner United Nations representatives having a nice vacation at Cancun at taxpayer expense are expected to come up with answers which would support their reason for being there. How non-self-serving would it be for them to say, "CO2/climate change is a fraud. Let's all go home and get to work".

In fact, the best the UN representatives could do was for the leader to say, "A Cancun deal isn't going to solve the whole problem of climate change, but it can set a new page for negotiations, where governments lock in better agreements every year." Herein lies the real danger. Government will kill us all on climate change through continued repetition and growth of the fraud. Our only defense is to pay attention and not let that happen. It is in the same category as "to maintain freedom, one must be eternally vigilant".

The Fraud of Regional Cap & Trade

2010-10-26T08:13:00.001-07:00

A chemist friend from New Hampshire e-mailed me suggesting that I look at the article entitled, "Cap and Trade Programs" in the October 18 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. He went on to suggest that the American Chemical Society, which publishes C&EN, get out of politics and confine its activity to Chemistry and Membership.

The essence of the C&EN article is a report on the development of regional Cap and Trade groups, which are composed of several states. One of the state groups is Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and includes New Hampshire and nine other Northeast states. Since New Hampshire is involved, I can see why my friend is upset.

For the uninitiated, Cap & Trade was originally proposed on the federal level as a Socialist Federal gimmick to obtain additional tax revenues from US taxpayers and distribute a portion to other countries as wealth redistribution. The Obama Administration hoped to obtain public and Congressional approval by establishing a fear that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would adversely affect climate. Using that basis, the idea was to establish a maximum limit on the emissions of carbon dioxide from various industrial activities, including electricity generation, and use a permit exchange process, with associated tax. Fortunately, Congress has been able to see through the duplicity of the proposed program and while they have previously demonstrated support of any tax increase mechanisms, they appear to be listening to the general public, since it concerns their reelection.

When The C&EN article devotes three pages in trying to prove the foresightedness of individual states in coming together to form regional groups for small Cap & Trade programs. C&EN cites that in 2009, which was RGGI's first year of operation, CO2 emissions in those member states fell 34%, without any significant change in electricity prices. Note that there was no data given on electricity production, the Cap amounts of CO2 allowed, nor the amount of taxes collected. C&EN's implication is that formation of the regional Cap & Trade group was a great success in reducing CO2 emissions. However, we have shown several times that the mere idea of controlling carbon dioxide emissions is ridiculous from a climate control viewpoint. It is only another gimmick to collect taxes and was not indicated to have been accomplished in the C&EN account.

The likelihood is that for the year 2010, we will also see a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. However, such reduction will be purely coincidental with respect to any regional Cap & Trade programs. The general reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will have been caused by lower level of electricity production, resulting from the recession, in which we still find ourselves. In addition, there has been a strong technological/economic advance in the power industry. Through a relatively new process of fracturing shale, large amounts of low-cost natural gas are now available as fuel for electricity generating plants. This has brought down the price of natural gas compared to coal, which has been the traditional fuel. Bloomberg Business Week, October 25, 2010, gives a natural gas price of $4.06 per million British Thermal Units. The coal price is given as $4.75 per million British Thermal Units. It is obvious that energy buyers will more likely purchase natural gas.

The conversion to use of natural gas will also coincidently reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even though that has no practical significance. To produce 1 million BTUs of heat, burning 36 pounds of natural gas is required versus 72 pounds of coal. The burning of 36 pounds of natural gas produces 113 pounds of CO2, while burning 72 pounds of coal produces 264 pounds of CO2. It is obvious that burning natural gas versus coal for electricity production, automatically produces less than half the usual CO2 emissions. The key point here is that reduction of CO2 emission is likely unrelated to any Cap & Trade program, but is rather the substitution of natural gas for coal in electricity production.

There is nothing complex about the above calculations, and I strongly criticize C&EN in not having presented them and thus resulting in their use of deception in order to promote Cap & Trade as a regional reducer of CO2 emissions, and perpetuating the myth that CO2 emissions are significant in climate change.

Another interesting aspect is that the coincidental reduction in CO2 emissions, caused by recession and conversion to the use of natural gas versus coal, will likely lead to a continuance and expansion of regional Cap & Trade, as the public is more easily defrauded by national magazines and state government, as opposed to simple facts presented above. This will be unfortunate as the hole will be dug deeper. Lower caps will be required, thus requiring more trading taxes and installation of CO2 capture equipment at electric utilities, all of which will increase the cost of electricity to consumers. Down the line, the inhabitants of other states which have not become a part of this fraud system will be thanking their state governments for not having become a part of this silly program.

Greenhouse Gas Deception

2010-10-26T07:59:00.001-07:00

EIN News says, "Ireland's greenhouse gases fall for first time in two decades 24 Oct 2010 - 10:28".

Reading further into the article, it says, "Resulting from the economic downturn all sectors of industry and commerce witnessed a decline in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in two decades. The statistics published today by the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that emission from the cement sector fell by well over a third."

There has been a worldwide recession, with a general reduction in the need for electricity and other forms of energy such as heat for production of Portland cement. It is highly likely that Ireland's total fuel use is down. But, note that the EPA, in a political move supporting the Obama administration on greenhouse gases, did not mention that. Their political agenda is to accent greenhouse gases, which we have demonstrated several times has no deleterious effects on climate change. This is a standard deceptive technique in using data incorrectly to support a political view, I abhor this action on the part of the EPA, which should be a respected agency.

Global Warming Is Good

2010-10-11T14:08:00.001-07:00

The Moon has daylight and night, similar to Earth. It also is about the same distance from the Sun, which is the heater. NASDA says daytime temperature on the Moon is 260 degrees F, which is hotter than boiling water at 212 Degrees F. Nighttime temperature is MINUS 280 degrees F. Why the extremes compared to Earth? GLOBAL WARMING on Earth. None on the Moon, because the Moon has no gaseous atmosphere. NASA says. "The air that surrounds our earth acts as a nice blanket to keep us warm and comfy!"

Those who promote Earth's global warming as a disadvantage say the Moon has a tenuous atmosphere comprised of argon, polonium, radon, helium, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, and that leads to a greenhouse effect on the Moon. This statement is contradictory to the observed temperatures and is also a red herring. There is no SIGNIFICANT atmosphere on the Moon. If there were it would be measurable as a realistic reading on a device for measurement of atmospheric pressure.

Notice that in the above claim for a Moon atmosphere, many specific gases are mentioned. The purpose for this specification is to awe the reader and develop respect for the intellectual capacity of the writer. Don't be fooled. It's snake oil gobble de gook. It is likely that all these components are present but at such low concentrations as to have no significant effect. Amounts and concentrations are always important. One can drown in a lake, but a drop of water presents no danger.

If you would like to see more convoluted information and fictional conclusions on global warming, see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23oct_ladee/. In so doing, notice the use of the term "tenuous", which means having little substance or effectively so weak as to be insignificant. Notice also the new word "exosphere". in place of atmosphere. NASA says that 1 cubic centimeter of Earth's
atmospheric gases contains 100 billion billion molecules. One cubic centimeter of the Moon's atmospheric gases contains only about 100 molecules.

Why are we even talking about this? The Moon has no atmosphere, which is why it is subject to the temperature extremes of outer space. Earth has a protective atmosphere, We can say it results in global warming, but it also results in global cooling. Global warming and global cooling are good for us.

Further Weakening of Cap & Trade

2010-09-18T08:33:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Drilling Regulations Snagged by Climate Fight. The Obama administration's push to beef up regulation of offshore drilling in the aftermath of the Gulf oil spill could get sidetracked by a battle over the White House's climate-change policy. (wsj.com)".

From the above headline, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening. Delving a little deeper into the original Wall Street Journal article, a few excerpts makes the situation significantly clearer.

The background is that Obama socialistic ideology of redistributing wealth globally must use the big tool of Cap & Trade. This must apply to carbon dioxide emission controls. Jackson, who is head of the EPA and who works for Obama, is obviously following Obama's directives by pushing for control of carbon dioxide emissions from all energy production in the US. Note that in every instance, reference is made to greenhouse gases, rather than defining the exact objective of controlling carbon dioxide emission. We obviously have no difficulty in controlling emissions of Freon and other manufactured chemicals, but carbon dioxide is in a completely different category. First it is a natural product of the environment and second, it's control would be a humongous undertaking involving many billions and perhaps trillions of dollars, which is why the Obama Administration is pushing it.

Here are a few excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article:

"The Senate Appropriations Committee had planned to vote Tuesday on a proposal to fund offshore drilling regulation and the operations of the Environmental Protection Agency. But that vote was canceled." Republicans said, " Sen. Lisa. Murkowski (R., Alaska) would [likely] offer an amendment to prohibit the EPA from spending any money to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and other major emitters." This threat to control the actions of the EPA, which is the Administration's most powerful socialistic tool in climate control, apparently has worried the Administration to the extent that they even canceled the combined drilling/EPA increased funding proposal.

"Some Democrats have also called for a time-out on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, saying they worry that such regulations would stifle the economy and threaten jobs." This is a clear indication that the Administration is losing Democratic support for their global Cap & Trade program. Apparently some financially hard-nosed Democrats are starting to recognize the need for improving the US economy and particularly the job situation, rather than pie-in-the-sky global warming.

Randy, this is all good news. Please keep up the pressure to convince other Democrats that there are limits to do-gooder, giveaway programs, especially on an international basis.

Chinese Publicity on Reducing CO2 Emissions Is Window Dressing Rather Than Reality.

2010-09-13T09:29:00.003-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "China Makes Inroads on Emissions. When it comes to climbing China's bureaucratic ladder, closing factories to cut greenhouse gas emissions can be a career booster. (washingtonpost.com)".

The implication from the above statement is that China is making significant progress in controlling emission of carbon dioxide, which has been in the news as a major greenhouse gas. However, let's look at the complete article (http://energy.einnews.com/article.php?oid=9nX+f3HxGidATdw&v=57603EAgzp8B2Cz/6DLTbIETWb2WFzdWM).

Huang Huikang is vice mayor of Tangshan in northeastern China. Huang says that he and his colleagues shuttered factories in Tangshan, a major steel- and cement-producing center and replaced them with cleaner-burning plants.

Production of steel and cement requires large amounts of heat. This is routinely obtained by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, or natural gas. Some steel plants use an electric arc process, but this also involves use of fossil fuels to generate electricity to produce the arc. "Cleaner burning plants" do not involve a major change in technology. Those plants are still generating large quantities of carbon dioxide, which is not mentioned in the article. There is only a vague reference to greenhouse gases. Notice also that the required heat could be generated from solar panels and wind turbines, but there is no mention of this. The reason is that, in the present stage of technology, it is economically impractical to do so.

The whole article smacks of bias toward the great job the Chinese are doing, but the Chinese themselves say they have no data to indicate whether they are making any progress toward reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any action may be more of a showpiece rather than of practical significance. As Chinese become wealthier, buy cars and move to the city at a rate of 24 million a year, all of this contributes to higher carbon emissions.

The statement of "career booster" mentioned in the EIN news announcement above escapes me. I didn't see any reference to making jobs or boosting the careers of individuals. As efforts to improve efficiency in a manufacturing operation require people of education and capability, it is obvious that those people are necessary in contrast to day-laborers.

Chinese Publicity on Reducing CO2 Emissions Is Window Dressing Rather Than Reality.

2010-09-13T09:29:00.001-07:00

Manufacturing the Weather

2010-09-13T08:19:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

It appears that Cap & Trade and anything related to carbon dioxide as a climate control agent is now generally less accepted. However, it will be difficult for this one to die, because it is a strong part of Pres. Obama's plan to redistribute wealth worldwide. You must be eternally vigilant that the Administration does not put one over on you. Our best protection is your knowledge concerning climate control and vigilance.

The Chemical Heritage Foundation of Philadelphia is an organization appealing to the nostalgic interest of persons interested in chemistry and the chemical industry. The organization publishes "Chemical Heritage" magazine, with four issues per year. The latest issue is Volume 28; Number 2 Summer 2010. It contains an article entitled, "Manufacturing the Weather" by James Rodgers Fleming.

Mr. Fleming does a wonderful job of reviewing the history of climate control, in his 4-page article.

The following is a description of the article: "With dynamite, fireworks, cannons, and kites, Robert St. George Dyrenforth hoped to end drought in the late 19th century. His vision of weather controlled by man seized the imagination of scientists and businessmen alike. In the heat of climate change, the appeal---and the controversy---surrounding this vision endures."

Mr. Fleming's article starts with the activities of meteorologist James P. Espy in the 1830s. Espy developed a theory that convection was the primary cause of rain. He proposed lighting huge fires along the Appalachian Mountains to provide heat, smoke, and particulate matter needed to trigger storms and enhance the nations rainfall.

After reviewing the history, Mr. Fleming concluded that, "Throughout history rainmakers and climate engineers have typically fallen into two categories: commercial charlatans using technical language and proprietary technologies to cash in on a gullible public, and sincere but deluded scientific practitioners exhibiting a modicum of chemical and physical knowledge, a bare minimum of atmospheric insight, and an abundance of hubris".

The Greenhouse Gas is Falling

2010-09-12T14:15:00.001-07:00

A US fairy tale
Adapted by Arthur Sucsy

Once upon a time there was a tiny, tiny chicken named Chicken Little. One day Chicken Little was scratching in the garden when something fell on her head.

"Oh," cried Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling. I must go tell the president."

So Chicken Little ran and ran, and she met Henny Penny.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.

"Ah, Henny Penny," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and I must go and tell the president."

"How do you know that the greenhouse is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you to the president," said Henny Penny.

So they ran along together, and they met Ducky Daddles.

"Where do you travel so fast?" asked Ducky Daddles.

"Ah, Ducky Daddles," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and Henny Penny and I go to tell the president."

"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Ducky Daddles.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you to the president," said Ducky Daddles.

So they ran along together, and they met Goosey Loosey.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.

"Ah, Goosey Loosey," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling. Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and I go to tell the president."

"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Goosey Loosey.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you," said Goosey Loosey.

So they ran along together, and they met Turkey Lurkey.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Turkey Lurkey.

"Ah, Turkey Lurkey," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and Henny Penny and Ducky Daddles and Goosey Loosey and I go to tell the president."

"How do you know that the greenhouse gas is falling?" asked Turkey Lurkey.

"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.

"I will go with you to the president," said Turkey Lurkey.

So they ran along together, and they met Foxy Loxy.

"Where do you travel so fast, Chicken Little?" asked Foxy Loxy.

"Ah, Foxy Loxy," said Chicken Little, "the greenhouse gas is falling, and we go to tell the president."

"Do you know the way to the president's house?" asked Foxy Loxy.

"No," said Chicken Little.

"No," said Henny Penny.

"No," said Ducky Daddles.

"No," said Goosey Loosey.

"No," said Turkey Lurkey.

"Then come with me and I will show you," said Foxy Loxy.

And just as he was about to lead them into his den to eat them...

...the greenhouse gas fell on him.

"Oh dear," said Chicken Little.

"We're too late," said Henny Penny.

"Poor Foxy Loxy," said Ducky Daddles.

"No sense in going to the president," said Goosey Loosey.

"Nothing to do now but go home," said Turkey Lurkey.

And they did.

Further Exposure of Global Warming Hoax

2010-09-02T07:22:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

An Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine paper, in traditional scientific format on the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global warming is at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm.

The details expose the hoax of claiming global warming is caused by a man-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Knowing your shortness of time to cover a multitude of subjects, I present here the Abstract as follows:

"ABSTRACT: A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric
carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects
upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide
has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon
use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to
current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of
rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries
are discussed."

In addition, C&EN (8/9/10, p 6) reminds us that the EPA began last December the regulatory process of controlling CO2 emissions by electric utilities, chemical companies, and "other sources". The EPA is now moving ahead with final regulations on motor vehicles.`

Congress gave birth to the EPA and has a responsibility to see that it continues to perform as conceived. As Bill Cosby said to his son on TV, "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out".

The EPA does some good work, and I don't recommend their dismantling. However with respect to CO2 and global warming, Director Jackson appears to have given up her respect for science and has followed the political road of Pres. Obama's idealisms. I believe it is Congress' job to get the EPA back on track or shut it down and start over.

Hand-to-Hand Combat and Global Warming

2010-08-30T08:17:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:
Randy,
I recently sent the following message to Rep. Giffords, D of Arizona:

Dear Ms. Giffords,
I have seen considerable criticism of your question to Gen. Patreus concerning what he is doing to control carbon dioxide emissions on the battlefield.

Having some experience in war and considerable experience as a scientist, I thought I might try to explain a few technicalities, which might modify your opinion on war and global warming.

You suggested use f more hand-to-hand combat involving knives and bayonets, rather than bullets and bombs, in an effort to suppress emission of carbon dioxide. The realization of war is to kill the enemy without being killed yourself.

Hand-to-hand combat is a one on one encounter with about a 50% chance that you yourself will be killed. It is much more practical for the individual and the war in general if the odds of survival can be increased, which they can be through use of bombs and bullets. This is generally true for industrialized nations, such as the United States, which has technically superior weapons.

However, it is granted that in the use of bullets and bombs, there is a release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations, which might take a half hour, will also show that the amount of such carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant as related to the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amounts produced daily merely by the breathing of human beings.

I believe that when you brought up the subject to Gen. Petraus, you were thinking of global warming and the myth that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere significantly affects such global warming.

We do have global warming, but the carbon dioxide affect is not significant. Earth is protected by an atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen and oxygen. These gases form a greenhouse effect to retain heat at the surface. Without it, we would all freeze to death. Therefore, to say that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas is a gross exaggeration, especially when its heat transmission is not significantly different from other gases and its concentration in the atmosphere is only about 0.04%.

Some data may show that the Earth is warmer now than it might have been 1 or 100 years ago, but there's also significant data to show that the Earth has been warmer during other time periods. These differences are caused by variations in solar radiation output and not by any actions on the part of mankind.

I hope this gets battlefield and global warming understanding in perspective for you.

EPA Acts Favorably on Acid Rain

2010-08-14T15:50:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

Credit where credit is due!

C&EN reports on July 12 that the EPA is cracking down on power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx. These are gaseous emissions, which when mixed with rain form acids; so-called "acid rain". The scientific basis of acid rain is well documented and consistent with theory and physical observations. The gases are "anhydrides", which chemically react with water to form acids. The SO2 forms sulfurous acid, which is relatively weak, but as SO2 exists in the atmosphere, it is slowly further oxidized to SO3, which then forms powerful sulfuric acid when reacted with water.

The interesting aspect about this is that the EPA has embarked on a real program, rather than a "pie-in-the-sky" program of chasing the Devil CO2, which we have shown many times does not deserve consideration.

I guess that this only could've happened because Obama and his henchmen of socialistic advisors and czars, who have been promoting CO2 emission control as a method to redistribute worldwide income, were not watching. Perhaps they don't understand the realism of acid rain compared to speculative global warming.

Another Waste in Carbon Dioxide Storage

2010-08-13T09:17:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Hands Out $21.3 Million to 15 Facilities in 12 States to Develop Storage Technology. U.S. Department of Energy officials announced $21.3 million in funding for facilities to create safe and economical technologies nationwide for storing carbon dioxide in geologic formations. (latimes.com)".

The Obama Administration will just not give up on this carbon dioxide thing. They wanted to establish worldwide limitations on carbon dioxide emissions to the economic disadvantage of the US. They couldn't get the votes in Congress and are now trying to piecemeal it into the same thing. We call this the "reverse salami" approach. This means you add very thin slices until you finally get the whole salami.

We have many times shown that there is no scientific basis for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide, nor capture and storage of same. The heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than through other atmospheric gases, and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere puts the final nail in the coffin.

Even a nickel spent on carbon dioxide control or storage is a waste, and here we have $21.3 million being blown down the drain.

Can't you do something about this stupidity?

American Chemical Society Incorrectly Promotes Global Warming Fear from CO2

2010-08-11T08:06:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

Stephen K. Ritter has a four-page article entitled, "Carbon Dioxide's Unsettled Future" in the July 26 Issue C&EN.

The first part of the article is a claim on the global-warming consequences of carbon-based energy. There is no explanation of why we should believe that hypothesis. In the mind of Stephen Ritter, it appears to be an accepted fact.

He goes on to quote the position of Frank Zhu, an employee of UOP/Honeywell. Zhu picks up the ball as the "unquestionable fact" carbon dioxide is a culprit in global warming. His discourse covers three attitudes; those who want to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient use of energy, those who want to eliminate CO2 emissions by capturing CO2, and those who will dilute CO2 emissions by using more solar and wind energy. Notice that all of this involves an assumption that CO2 emissions must be reduced. Notice also that Frank Zhu is in the business of applying UOP/Honeywell technology to CO2 capture.

Another person referred to in Ritter's article is Joseph Powell of Shell Global Solutions. One would think that Shell would be opposed to reducing oil production for a reduction in CO2 emission. However, there is some confusion in the collective Shell mind. It may be that Shell is being swayed by general public opinion, but they also may consider this an opportunity to "overly complex" the technology to Shell's economic advantage. The confusion arises from the difference between their apparently stated position versus what they're actually doing. For example, they have an arrangement with Iogen to produce ethanol. May I remind you that when you burn ethanol, you produce CO2? Shell also has a joint venture with Cellana to produce triglycerides for Diesel use. May I remind you that when you burn Diesel fuel, you produce CO2? Shell is working with Codexis to develop enzymes that convert biomass into fuels. May I remind you that when these fuels are burned, you produce CO2?

Another person referred to in Ritter's article is George Richards of the US Department of Energy. Notice that even before we begin his comments, he is likely to be biased because he works for Pres. Obama, who has many times clearly indicated his strong position for equalizing world incomes, and that would include hamstringing the United States by fostering economic growth to less developed countries. He would do this by a carbon dioxide tax on US energy users in the United States and sending a substantial portion of that income to less developed countries under the guise of decreasing their CO2 emissions for a worldwide benefit of reduced global warming. Again, there is no mention anywhere of a scientifically developed connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Richards says that less developed countries are going to use fossil fuel resources with elimination of CO2, and implies that we must supply them with the technology for CO2 capture. The Department of Energy is developing and testing capture, storage, and use technologies in collaboration with academic and industrial partners, including power producers and petrochemical companies. All of this is being done at taxpayer expense for a project on which there is a substantial disbelief in its necessity.

All of the above comes from the first page of Ritter's article. The other three pages involve explanations of all of the work being done on CO2 capture. This makes interesting reading for scientists and engineers, and especially those having a "financial special interest". However, the question is "why?". Comic books are also interesting reading, but at least they do no significant damage to the economy.

Why Is the Energy Department Giving up CO2 Capture in Power Plants?

2010-08-06T12:57:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Changes Plan on Capturing Coal Emissions. The Energy Department abruptly shifted course on a flagship federal effort to capture and sequester carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants, saying it would not finance construction of a new plant in Mattoon, Ill. (nytimes.com)".

This is good news, because of its practicality. However I am interested in the motivation. Does the energy Department now think that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous greenhouse gas to be controlled? Is the national debt becoming too high such that it can't be justified financially?

Maybe you can ferret out the reason why the Energy Department has taken this new stance. If there is a reversal of opinion on carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, there is still some hope for the country.

Sen. Kerry's Climate Bill Is a Boogie Man Tax

2010-07-08T12:12:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Energy Measure Would Cut Deficit by $19 Billion, Report Says. Senator John F. Kerry's signature energy and climate change legislation would cut the deficit by $19 billion, according to an estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation faces strong opposition from Republicans and some Democrats from energy-producing states, but the report gives the Massachusetts Democrat and his allies a compelling financial argument amid concerns about the implications of a burgeoning deficit. (boston.com)".

I refer to this as the $19 billion Boogie Man tax disguised as Fairy Godmother deficit reduction. If you don't pay the tax, the Boogie Man will getcha! Only young children and halfwits believe in the Boogie Man and that is about the same belief level as those believing that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes significantly to global warming.

If Kerry and his deceptive or misguided associates are unsuccessful in pushing this through, maybe they need a more honest or practical approach. How about everybody with income above $10,000 per year kick in $1000 to a kitty? We then take $500 per donor and distribute it to the low income group. We then take a $250 per donor reduction against the national debt. Finally, we take the last $250 per donor and apply it to new dreamed up spending to get the economy rolling.

Obama's Hard Sell of Cap & Trade to Senators

2010-06-29T11:48:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "President Obama's 'Moment of Truth' for Energy Bill. With time ticking away before the midterm elections, President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan group of senators at the White House in the hope of finding some consensus on capping greenhouse gases. (politico.com)".

The consensus for this idea must be to kill it in the womb, as if it were Rosemary's Baby. The proposal is stupid and nonsensical. I previously had a high regard for the English, but this theory of carbon dioxide significantly contributing to global warming takes my regard down many notches.

I normally take a negotiating attitude in resolving a problem, but this is no problem. It is an absurd proposal. The outcome of the negotiation must be that Senators will collectively fight tooth and nail against the Administration on this proposal to destroy the American economy.

Climate Change Bill Will Radically Reduce American Lifestyle

2010-06-09T10:23:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Support for U.S. Climate Regulation Growing, Poll Finds. A growing number of Americans want the United States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as the largest oil spill in U.S. history helps boost interest in petroleum alternatives, a poll by two universities found. (reuters.com)".

I suppose the public may be thinking that by reducing carbon dioxide emission, we will reduce the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. If we don't use gasoline and diesel fuel, we won't need crude oil from the Gulf or anywhere else and this will eliminate the possibility of oil spills.

Even though there is no relation between carbon dioxide emission and climate change, there are some other favorable aspects to the proposal. The noise level from automotive vehicles will be significantly reduced. People will be more healthful by walking and bicycle riding. People will spend significantly less money on purchase of automobiles and their upkeep.

Unfortunately, there will be some downsides. There will be no pleasure from driving an automotive vehicle. More time will be spent traveling to and from the grocery store. Visiting friends or relatives in other parts of town or the country will be eliminated. Jobs for making and maintaining automotive vehicles will be eliminated. Jobs for producing and refining crude oil will be eliminated.

Everything has its upsides and downsides. I like my automobile. It is very helpful to me for my standard of living. I am willing to spend the money on its upkeep. Any carbon dioxide emitted in its operation will have no effect on climate change.

As a Representative, I suggest you be careful of what people say they want. In many cases "they know not what they do".

Lieberman/Kerry Climate Bill Is a Fraud and Deception

2010-06-02T08:58:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

Senators Lieberman and Kerry introduced their climate-change bill in the Senate last month. (Chemical and Engineering News, May 17, 2010, page 10). The bill is nearly 1000 pages long.

The purpose of very lengthy bills is to hide something within and/or include enough "goodies" that Representatives and Senators will pass the bills in consideration that the negative aspects will likely do little harm.

In this case, the inclusion of Cap & Trade will do irreparable harm to our economy.

In addition to the questionable ethics of deviously promoting a negative aspect, there is another consideration. The bill includes start of CO2 compliance in 2016. If this is an urgent matter, why the postponement for six years? Answer: No one really knows what the situation will be 6 years down the road and most people realize this. Therefore, it is another incentive to pass the bill, because most Representatives and Senators will take the attitude that they can vote positively on the bill now, since nothing bad will happen for six years.

This bill is a fraud and deception. I realize you and other Republicans will vote against it, but you are outnumbered. The only opportunity to kill it is to obtain the cooperation of some Democrats. Not all Democrats are committed to the World-Order, with the distraction of the United States. Many of them have just not yet seen the World Order program of the Obama administration. Many are also uneducated on aspects of climate, including global warming, and do not realize that it has no scientific basis. It is your job to educate as many of these Democrats as possible. Do not talk with Republicans, other than to form a coordinated educational program for Democrats. Then, educate the more reasonable Democrats on this subject. If you need scientific facts for the convincing, I am available.

Fuel Cells Do Not Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions

2010-05-29T09:00:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN New says, "Fuel cell to provide clean power for downtown complex".

This is a deceptive announcement bordering on fraud.

The deception lies in the claims that "the building’s low energy use has carbon dioxide mitigating benefits equal to planting 180 acres of trees" and "the apartments will have 18 percent of the carbon footprint of a typical single-family home in Connecticut."

If the claimed energy saving results from improved heat insulation, the claim is legitimate, but the implication that most people will accept is that there is a reduction in carbon dioxide emission, which is not true. Carbon dioxide emission is insignificant from a geophysical viewpoint, but many people have grabbed this fad.

Fuel cells consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished. Many combinations of fuels and oxidants are possible. A hydrogen fuel cell uses hydrogen as its fuel.

Other fuels include hydrocarbons and alcohols. If hydrogen is the source fuel, it is generated externally usually from electrochemical decomposition of water, which requires fossil fuels to generate the electricity. If methane is used directly in the fuel cell, its direct by-product of use is carbon dioxide.

Congress Must Control the Actions of the EPA

2010-05-28T13:24:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

Congress established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a watchdog organization to protect the American public from hazardous chemicals, particularly from intentional or accidental synthesis by private industry. It passed the control of the agency to the Administration, where such control resides at present.

Because of the resent Administration's political perspective with respect to global warming, the EPA has forsaken its responsibility for objective analysis of "hazardous chemical" control and has extended the interpretation of "hazard" beyond a reasonable level for political reasons. It has defined carbon dioxide as a hazardous gas in the atmosphere, on which there is no scientific basis to support this decision. It further plans to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing combustion of fossil fuels, which will decimate an already
fragile economy.

EPA's your baby. You set up,, and you should control it. If you don't you will be aiding and abetting further destruction of the US economy to establish a world order, which is the obvious intention of the Obama Administration. Reference: Chemical and Engineering News April 5, 2010, page 9.

Eliminating Use of Fossil Fuels Akin to Drinking Cyanide Laced Kool Aid

2010-05-22T08:44:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

The St. Petersburg Times says, "Grandparents, support clean energy for your grandchildren's sake". The article goes on to condemn carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant, which can only be controlled by eliminating use of fossil fuels.

This is an emotional appeal to a ridiculous undertaking. There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant.

The article reminds me of Rev. Jones convincing his followers to drink cyanide laced Kool Aid in Guyana.

Question the Motives of the National Academy of Sciences

2010-05-20T13:46:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Climate-Change Study Points to Man's Role. The National Academy of Sciences, a group of elite American researchers that advises the U.S. government, issued an 869-page report reasserting mankind's role in altering the climate and calling for specific policy measures to help forestall undesirable effects. (wsj.com).

We need to know how many of these elite American are unobjectively devoted to science.

This would be a good project for one of your assistants. A suggested procedure would be to make a list of the elite researchers closely associated with preparation of the 869-page report. Each of those researchers should then be searched for receipt of private or government grants for their research and receipt of other funds for advising Congressmen or other political figures on the advantages of climate control.

Scientific organizations were previously devoted to the advancement of science. More recently with government research grants, the scientific organizations have become more political.

Kill the Kerry/Lieberman Climate Bill Now

2010-05-14T07:58:00.001-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Senate Gets a Climate and Energy Bill, Modified by a Gulf Spill That Still Grows. The long delayed and much amended Senate plan to deal with global warming and energy was unveiled to considerable fanfare but uncertain prospects. After nearly eight months of negotiations with lawmakers and interest groups, Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, produced a 987-page bill that tries to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. (nytimes.com)".

I strongly suggest that you not only vote against this bill if it ever comes to the floor, but that you now complain, protest, object, criticize, murmur, grumble, deplore, lament, whine, bewail repine, gripe, rail, remonstrate, and bellyache against it to a degree that all of your associates in the house understand the ridiculous nature of the proposal.

The major points of objection are:

1. The bill likely includes controls on emissions of carbon dioxide, which have NOT been proven detrimental to climate change. In addition, laboratory data show that carbon dioxide is not significantly more reflective to heat transfer, and increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, than other atmospheric gases.

2. Any bill which has 987 pages has many things to hide, which is the purpose of its large volume. Another example is the healthcare bill. Conversely, the new immigrant control law in Arizona required only 10 pages.

3. Reduction of oil imports is a prophecy. My prophecy is that such a law will not reduce oil imports, unless the bill contains restrictions directly controlling import volume. Many millions of cars and trucks depend upon oil for their operation. That technology has been developed over a period of 100 years and will not be easily changed. The recent catastrophe of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico also has its ancillary effect that states adjacent to large bodies of water now consider eliminating the possibility of oil drilling off their coasts.

4. The law will not create millions of new PRODUCTIVE energy-related jobs. Jobs must always be looked at from a productive quality viewpoint. If I have a job digging holes and then filling them in, I make no productive contribution in the operation. Since it is a job, for which I am paid, the people paying me must have some productive operation, on which to obtain the money to pay me. If they do not, the whole system, falls into decline.

I may now have a job producing diesel for a consuming public and that operation is productive for low-cost transportation of goods. If I switch to a job involving production of electricity by wind energy, the job has not increased, and the results of my work are considerably less productive than if I had remained in my diesel job.

Primer on Greenhouses and Geo-Engineering

2010-04-21T08:13:00.000-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

I presume your specialty is politics, and I know my specialty is science. It also seems that they meet occasionally, such that some scientific knowledge is necessary to make a reasonable political decision.

On that basis, I would like to give a little primer on greenhouses, since that is the current catchy word being used as the basis for climate control.

As you know, a greenhouse is traditionally a glass-ceiling building, generally used for growing plants. The glass ceiling allows sunlight to enter the building. Sunlight is composed of radiation of various wavelengths. It all passes through the glass ceiling on its way into the building. When it strikes a hard surface, such as concrete, growing plants and other paraphernalia in the building, some of entering radiation is converted to heat. That heat is unable to pass back out through the glass ceiling and results in an increased temperature within the building. This is not theory. It is observable fact.

The theory of global warming is that the 0.05% carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere acts in the same manner as the glass ceiling in a greenhouse, thereby leading to increased temperature of the whole earth, similar to the interior of the greenhouse. Consider that carbon dioxide is a gas, much like nitrogen and oxygen, which constitute most of atmospheric gases. Laboratory tests also show that the insulating effect of carbon dioxide to passage of heat is only slightly more than for nitrogen and oxygen. With these facts available, does it make sense to you that low concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have a significant effect on climate, and particularly global warming?

The term geoengineering means manipulating the Earth's atmosphere by physical means. For example, one proposal to reduce the amount of solar radiation striking the earth is to place large amounts of sulfate particles in the atmosphere.

There was a recent climate conference in California. The major topic was geo-engineering, but the conferees agreed that geoengineering should only be applied after all aspects of carbon dioxide control have been instituted. The implication of this statement is that if carbon dioxide controls are not instituted, geo-engineering will be pushed.

The conferees also agreed that research should be continued. This is always a "motherhood" statement, which generally has merit, even though the conferees stand to profit most by federal funding of various research projects.

Another aspect, which was not mentioned by the conferees, is the military potential. If a specific country can control the climate of another country, it is only an indirect act of war, but could be more effective in establishing control then even a traditional military operation.

My bottom-line recommendations are for you to fight tooth and nail against any attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, support limited geochemical research for its potential application to military use, and avoid any research on geo-engineering for general attempts at climate control with respect to the theory of global warming.

Preliminary Obama Administration Set-up for Geo-engineering

2010-04-13T09:23:00.000-07:00

E-Mail to Congress:

Chemical and Engineering News had an article entitled, "Adjusting to Climate Change" in their March 22 issue.

The article says Pres. Obama has appointed an Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. The task force is composed of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies. Notice that all representatives are government employees reporting to Pres. Obama. The objective of the task force is to "review existing policies, operations, and procedures that affect the federal government's ability to respond to and prepare for climate impacts". Another way to say this is the Pres. Obama doesn't want any discordant voices on the subject in his Administration. They must all speak the same party line.

Notice that this is also the Administration's fallback position, if Congress fails to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The Administration is presuming that under that circumstance, there will be climate change. Since they are now gearing up to handle such climate change, you can be sure that they will find climate change to regulate, whether it exists or not. This is the first aspect of geo-engineering, which we will hear more about.

World Bank on Climate Control

2010-04-09T08:46:00.000-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "World Bank Backs Loan for South Africa Power Station. The World Bank has approved a $3.75 billion loan for a huge new coal-fired power station in South Africa, despite environmental concerns. (bbc.co.uk)".

Without further details, it appears that the Administration of the World Bank has made a proper and perhaps a landmark decision. We don't know exactly what the term "despite environmental concerns" means, but it is probable that the huge plant will not have the sequestration of carbon dioxide.

If this is true, World Bank Administration apparently believes that atmospheric carbon dioxide does not lead to significant global warming, at least two of the extent that it is more important then South Africa's GDP.

Since this is apparently true for South Africa, would it not also be true for the US? This again brings us back to the fact that consideration of carbon dioxide sequestration and Cap & Trade is only another tax gimmick is not related to any environmental factors.

With this consideration, I again urge you to vote against any Cap & Trade regulations or anything related to carbon dioxide sequestration. I also urge you to work vigorously against the whole idea, and particularly against the EPA, which appears to be following Pres. Obama's directives, even though EPA was established by Congress.

Hot Time in Southern California

2010-04-07T15:37:00.000-07:00

e-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "California's Cap-Trade Law Faces Fall Ballot Challenge. The energy industry and an antitax group are challenging California's plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, saying the effort would lead to job losses and raise energy prices if it goes into effect in 2012. (wsj.com)".

It continues to amaze me how ridiculous the California leadership can be. They have one of the highest unemployment areas in the country, are tremendously in debt, such that they have to offer I/O/Us instead of cash to pay their bills. Yet they continue to voluntarily swamp themselves with unnecessary unemployment increases and increasing debt.

Let's repeat the facts. When they say greenhouse gases, they mean carbon dioxide. However, carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. It is slightly more resistant to the passage and loss of heat to the stratosphere than other atmospheric gases, such as oxygen and nitrogen, but its concentration is so low (0.05%) that its effect on global warming is insignificant.
Perhaps the Californian leadership is looking more at Cap & Trade for the tax money it might bring in on the basis of fraud and deceit. The tax money would come from fossil burning electricity plants, who would pass along that cost to consumers. The net effect will be a general public tax on electrical energy. People out of work, can hardly pay their rent and food bills. It's going to be awfully hot for those living south of San Francisco this summer, when the air conditioning bills would be too high to buy the service.

UN Needs Climate Control to Establish World Government

2010-04-01T08:52:00.001-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Copenhagen Accord Climate Pledges Too Weak, UN Says, More than 110 countries have signed up to the Copenhagen Accord on fighting global warming but the United Nations said that their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions were insufficient. (reuters.com)".

As usual, we have to consider motivations in order to properly interpret such comments.

The objective of the UN Administration is to develop a world government, in which they are in charge. To do this effectively, it is necessary to reduce the power of developed countries. This is similar to the program of the Obama Administration, which daily reduces the power of its citizens,

One of the most effective ways to reduce the power of a developed country is to reduce its reliance on energy. The UN wants atmospheric carbon dioxide control, because this automatically reduces use of fossil fuels, which finally reduces a country's Gross Domestic Production (GDP).

If you want to help the UN establish a world government, you need to vote for as many hindrances to the use of fossil fuels as possible. However, I believe you are interested in maintaining maximum financial power of the US and its citizens. Therefore, I suggest you stay away from climate change legislation, as if it were the plague. In addition, I believe you should take an active part in killing it in the Congress. You can do this through political appeal to maintain US supremacy and use scientific support showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming.

If you really want to hinder the US attempt to establish world government, you will also need to fight their attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions, since this is their most powerful weapon in reducing the US to a Third World country.

EPA Slowing Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Permits

2010-03-30T11:22:00.001-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "EPA Delays Plants' Pollution Permits. The Environmental Protection Agency said that it would not require power plants or other industrial sites to obtain federal pollution permits for emitting greenhouse gases before next January. (nytimes.com)".

We may be making a little progress. The EPA seems to be stretching out the time to convert the US to a Third World country. They still seem to have not given up the idea that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas nor a pollutant. As long as they retain this position, which is based on a desire to reorganize world energy and financial capability, rather than scientific facts, we are in trouble. Their motivations completely ignore the fact that carbon dioxide does not impede passage of heat anymore significantly than other major atmospheric gases. The fact that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is so low compared to nitrogen and oxygen, makes the whole proposal of anthropogenic global warming caused by carbon dioxide a joke.

Support for Cap & Trade tax dying But for Wrong Reasons

2010-03-27T07:30:00.000-07:00

E-mail the Congress:

EIN News says, "'Cap and Trade' Loses Its Standing As Energy Policy of Choice. Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change. Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it "cap and tax," and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington. (nytimes.com)".

That's good, as far as it goes. However, it should be noted that by implication, climate change needs to be tackled, but not by Cap & Trade. That depresses me, because of the apparent continued belief that carbon dioxide is an air contaminant, which contributes significantly to global warming. I have shown previously that heat transmission through carbon dioxide is not significantly different than heat transmission through oxygen and nitrogen, which are major components of the atmosphere. In addition, the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to those of the gases eliminates any possible effect it could have.

I suppose it is very difficult to allay a public fear by use of facts. The myth of the existence of dragons has been around for a very long time, and there are presumably many people who still believe in their existence. A Cap & Trade tax, on the myth of carbon dioxide significantly influencing climate change, would be equivalent to government saying all citizens must pay $1000 so that we can keep away the dragons.

Democrats Last Gasp on Climate Control

2010-03-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Democrats Look to Industry for Help in Climate Bill. Some lawmakers have come to accept the political reality that businesses will play a key role in shaping global warming legislation. (latimes.com)".

This is a wrong premise. Industry is a collection of companies, generally with manufacturing capability as opposed to service companies, such as insurance. These companies have a prime desire to stay in business, and they will do so only as long as they are profitable. To them profitability means having money left over after paying all of their expenses, such as manufacturing costs, sales and administrative expenses, including good salaries and bonuses for management. They are not in the business of social reform and generally not climate change. They recognize that there are certain government edicts, especially government money grants, which could be favorable to their bottom line. They are generally not much interested in the scientific or political justification for such grants, only that they receive them.

This is not to say that industry representatives do not have some good ideas which could be favorable to the economy and our society in general. Representatives and Senators should listen to them, bearing in mind that those comments are based upon the desire for personal advantage. In the final analysis, legislators should be making their decisions for the good of the country.

As time passes, the fear of climate change has become less relevant to the general public. In fact, climate change has achieved the status where it is a butt of many jokes. This situation can be very dangerous for climate change proponents, especially in government, where huge tax inflows were anticipated from Cap & Trade and ancillary measures.

The Democrat approach to soliciting aid from industry is a last gasp measure. They will get some support from opportunists, but they are working against themselves. Recall that Pres. Obama, the "prime Democrat" has generally been the denouncing private industry. All of a sudden government needs private industry support? Isn't this rather two-faced?

Confusing Oil Recovery with Cap & Trade

2010-03-12T13:18:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

Randy,
EIN News says, "Pairing Oil Recovery With Carbon Capture a Win-Win for U.S., Report Says. Enhanced oil recovery -- a technique that stimulates aging wells -- combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) could slash U.S. petroleum imports if there is a strong price on carbon, according to a report commissioned by an environmental group. (nytimes.com)".

Without even having read the report, I can tell you it is crazy logic.

Enhanced oil recovery, which is a practice that has been going on for many years, is certainly a good thing. Basically, it involves chemical and physical treatment of old wells to increase the production rate of those wells.

This has nothing to do with capturing and storing carbon dioxide from burning coal in electric utilities.

Why not say that a win-win situation is to treat old oil wells for greater production and have everybody get a haircut every two weeks.

Congress Must Restrain the EPA on Climate Change

2010-03-07T09:16:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Lawmakers Move to Restrain EPA on Climate Change. As climate change legislation stalled in the Senate, the Obama administration noted that it had a workable -- although admittedly unwieldy -- Plan B. If Congress wouldn't cap U.S. emissions, officials said, the Environmental Protection Agency would do it instead. (washingtonpost.com)".

Good move, if you are really restraining EPA on climate change. Up to now EPA has been following the dictates of the Obama Administration. They're both trying to control something they know nothing about. The only thing that is certain is that it will cost an additional tremendous amount of money, if they continue with the controls.

Congress originally set up the EPA. As Bill Cosby said to his son, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out". President Obama has been usurping your power bit by bit. This may be a place to set the mark in the dirt. Tell the EPA what they must do. That is, not be a political activist for the Obama Administration, but rather get back to scientific investigations and controls for the benefit of the US population.

EPA Not All Bad

2010-03-07T08:00:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

I have previously taken a hard attitude against the EPA, because of their unrealistic position of considering carbon dioxide as an undesirable component of the atmosphere. This position is apparently based upon the basic philosophy and promotions of East Anglia University. Those promotions are loaded with sophisticated intellectual jargon and the invention of new terms, such as "greenhouse gas" and global warming. The EPA has apparently swallowed all of these claims, without any scientific consideration, such as relative reflectivity of carbon dioxide toward infrared compared to other atmospheric gases and the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I previously had some respect for the scientific integrity of the EPA, but I see that they are now swayed unrealistically by the opportunistic, Marxist opinions of their boss, Pres. Obama.

But to give the Devil it's due, there is an article in the March 1 issue of C&EN entitled, "EPA Revisits Atrazine". My hat is off to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning the revisit. Atrazine is a widely used herbicide and traces from runoff have appeared in streams and groundwater. The EPA originally declared Atrazine "safe" with respect to expected human exposure concentrations. However, various other data on birth defects, premature births and low human birth weights have been developing.

The key point is that the EPA is now restudying Atrazine human toxicity at present usage levels, and is including in the study a first attempt at incorporating epidemiological data. This is rather difficult, as the C&EN article indicates, but EPA plans to persist. That being the case with respect to Atrazine, why do we glibly accept the claptrap with respect to the claimed dangers of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Money for Status and Toys

2010-03-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Cap-and-Trade Loses Lots of Steam As Senators Negotiate. The trio of senators negotiating a broad climate change and energy bill appears likely to abandon plans for an economywide cap on greenhouse gas emissions in favor of a sector-based approach that is winning cautious support by oil and gas industry leaders. (chron.com)".

There is a very interesting article entitled, "Seeking Funds for Geo-Engineering" by Cheryl Hogue in the February 22nd Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Cheryl works for Editor-In-Chief Rudy Baum. Rudy has a BA in Chemistry from Duke and did some part-time work in medical school. He has swallowed the hoax of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations radically affecting climate change. As far as I can tell, he has never given justification for his opinion, although he and his staff continue to expound the need for climate control. I have previously claimed that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have little to no affect on climate change, because carbon dioxide is not significantly more insulating than other atmospheric gases and its concentration is very low. No one has ever challenged my position on this reasoning. Conversely, C&EN and others have continued to promote fear through their apparently unjustified opinion that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a strong effect on climate change.

I strongly suspect that many scientists who have taken up the flag on climate change have done so on the basis of personal profit. It is easy to accept the questionable teachings of the East Anglia group, who invented the terms global warming and greenhouse gas, if there is an economic advantage to do so.

In her article, Cheryl Hogue assumes that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affecting climate change is an accepted fact. On that basis, she goes on to record various technical suggestions for control of carbon dioxide, and categorizes this as "Geo-engineering". The next big jump is that she implies present funding for geo-engineering results from a an insufficient "hodgepodge of private money". She doesn't say how much that is but does say it includes $2.5 million of federal money. She regards this is picayune and is pushing for public funds. Note that any time a project requires substantial money, "public funds" must always come into the picture.

Philip Rasch is chief climate scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories Atmospheric Science and Global Change Division. High sounding title but in fact he is an employee of a minor government bureaucracy. Rasch says he wants $10 to 50 million for research in this area. He then goes on to say that $22 BILLION would not be unreasonable Why? So he can be having a bigger, more important position in government circles, or does he have a scientific motive to obtain facts? What kind of research would he be pursuing? Would it be to determine whether atmospheric carbon dioxide has a real effect on climate change, or will he start from the presumption that it does and wander into "never never land"?

What are some of the projects, which other geo-engineers would like to squander public funds on? Prof. Lackner of Columbia wants a program to reduce the cost of "mineral sequestration" from $100 per ton of CO2 to $10. Why would we want to do that? Have we really established that that is a necessary objective? I suppose a project like this would be good for Lackner. He would have the prestige of operating a big project, and he could obtain a nice cut of the funds for his personal use.

David Keith is a professor at the University of Calgary. He wants to interfere with how much radiation is captured by the Earth through injecting aerosols into the atmosphere to act as insulators for incoming radiation. A nutty idea? Yes, but believable by many ignorant people, including Congressman. That's not to say that ignorance of congressmen is a derogatory statement, but rather that most congressmen do not have a basic understanding of science and the technology of engineering.

Prof. Jackson of Duke and Prof. Keith recommend the formation of a governmental interagency working group on geo-engineering. It would be analogous to the US Global Change Research program, an interagency group focused on climate-change research, apparently already established. Why establish such groups? The purpose is obvious. The more bureaucracy we have, the more money can be allocated to the individual bureaus from the federal budget and thus trickle down to private (usually University) interests, allowing funds for more toys.

Another Maneuver to Push the Tax of Cap & Trade

2010-02-19T08:25:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Proposal Calls for Emissions Study With New Government-Approved Projects. The Obama administration proposed rules that could affect construction of coal-fired power plants and other government-approved projects that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. (latimes.com)".

This is another sneaky way to work into Cap & Trade, which is nothing more than another tax increase based upon myth. Why not another tax increase to pay for a program to keep the boogie man away from the door?

Was Global Warming Responsible for Cutting Drought Conditions in the US from 50% to 7%?

2010-02-18T14:37:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Dramatic Drought Turnaround; Farmers and Communities Are Relieved As Much of the U.S. Emerges From a Deep Drought. Only about 7 percent of the U.S. is experiencing drought conditions, down from a peak of close to 50 percent in August 2007. Only small parts of Hawaii are currently under "extreme" drought conditions. (abcnews.go.com)".

The latest jargon from the climate-change activists is that global warming, which is attributed to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, has contributed to unsettled weather conditions. They say that the spells of snow ice i and general cold weather in the US this winter are characteristic of what we can expect, but it will be variable. Personally I consider this so much hogwash.

On the other hand since we have already been indoctrinated into dealing in fantasy, let's play along for the ride.

If drought conditions in the US have been cut from 50% to 7%, and this is caused by global warming, that's good! I am now in favor of the results of global warming. I don't believe in the concept. The science is all wrong, with respect to what the advocates claim. But who am I to argue with favorable results. Hooray for global warming!

Careful on Energy Giants Lobbying for Cap & Trade

2010-02-13T09:48:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Energy Giants Pushing for Cap-and-Trade? The U.S. Senate's stalled climate bill is getting a last big push from an unlikely ally -- a group of energy companies who say a carbon market will help them get financing for the next generation of energy production. (reuters.com)".

Careful! Do not be deceived into thinking that the position of any of these energy companies is related to carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and global warming. All private companies operate on the basis of supplying to customers a product in the form they desire. A company generally has no reticence of taking government money for any kind of boondoggling operation, provided the money helps its bottom line and maintains the companies financial viability in the marketplace. It is not a company's job to decide what customers or government should have. A company merely needs to supply the product or service, once the public and government decide the requirements.

As a government leader, it is your job to decide what is logical and practical for the society.

Global Cooling

2010-02-08T08:59:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

So God said, "You think you have global warming? Let me show you some global cooling!

Sneaky Climate Change Amendments

2010-01-26T09:21:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Democrats Study Plan B for Energy, Climate Change. The Obama administration's already dim hopes of passing sweeping energy and climate change legislation darkened further with last week's Republican victory in the special election to fill a Senate seat from Massachusetts. Now Democratic leaders eager to cap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming are mulling a possible Plan B: tacking "clean energy" measures onto a job-creation package and following that up with an "energy-only" bill that doesn't contain a specific plan for combating climate change. (chron.com)".

Please be on your toes watching for the Democratic tricky maneuvers. Stupidity is hard to stamp out. The only positive thing I can say about Democrats is they are persistent. Unfortunately, their persistence is usually directed on the wrong objectives.

Climate change legislation, including various manifestations of Cap & trade, declaring carbon dioxide a noxious gas, and others must be eliminated. If possible it should be replaced by a bill which demands a two-third majority in both the House and the Senate before it can ever again be considered.

The more immediate problem is the Democrats' plan to add climate change amendments to more favorable bills, such as job-creation. It will be necessary to combat that with perseverance demanding that any bill involving climate change or job-creation must be free-standing.

Discredit EPA on Global Warming

2010-01-22T11:48:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Senators Murkowski and Lincoln:

EIN News says, "Senator Offers Measure to Overturn EPA Greenhouse-Gas Effort. Sen. Lisa Murkowski offered Thursday a measure to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, putting a new edge on a conflict over environmental policy. The Republican lawmaker offered a "resolution of disapproval" after picking up support from lawmakers including Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), who is high on the list of Democrats at risk of losing their seats in the November midterm elections. The resolution would block an EPA finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to the public, a legal pre-requisite for regulating. (wsj.com)".

Congratulations!

I speak as a scientist. All gases in the atmosphere show a greenhouse effect. Without them the Earth would be unlivably cold.
atmosphere and its coefficient of the transmission is such that it has little to no effect on Earth temperatures. Know what it is the concentration were doubled.

The EPA and many others have been embarked on a political maneuver, without basis of scientific fact.

Another Nail in the Global Warming Coffin

2010-01-12T14:44:00.001-08:00

E-mail the Congress:

EIN News says, "Largest U.S. Farm Group Rallies Against Climate Bill. The largest U.S. farm group will oppose aggressively "misguided" climate legislation pending in Congress and fight animal rights activists, said American Farm Bureau Federation president Bob Stallman on Sunday. In a speech opening the four-day AFBF convention, Stallman said American farmers and ranchers "must aggressively respond to extremists" and "misguided, activist-driven regulation (reuters.com)".

Where have these people been up to now? Perhaps they finally see that the ship is sinking. Most likely they have been sitting on their haunches, because they have been receiving subsidies and did not want to shake up the goose laying the golden eggs. But, the goose is dying, and we should all be giving a last-minute effort to keep it alive.

In spite of that negative comment, hooray for the American Farm Bureau Federation and particularly Bob Stallman! We can use all the help we can get in trying to wake up Congress to the terrible myth of carbon dioxide in global warming and the need for its control.

Market Forces

2009-12-27T08:20:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

Let us say I have developed a new widget, which I believe can compete in the marketplace. It works better than any existing widgets now on the market and my manufacturing and promotion costs are such that I can price it competitively. If I take the gamble to pursue the market, the chances are good that I can obtain a large segment of it and make a profit. I need not remind you that this is capitalism, wherein I have an opportunity for personal profit and the public ends up with a better widget for the same price.

Let us now change the scenario a bit. Same as before, except that my costs are higher. If I proceed with the program, I will have to charge a higher price than my competitors to stay in business. If I price at the same level as my competitors, I will lose money and be out of business. What to do? There are some nice answers available. I can get government to put a tax on the competitive widgets but not on mine. I can also get government to give me a subsidy for my widget production. A double deal! Nice! Notice the similarity to government subsidies on wind turbines and photovoltaics. Congress has yet to act on taxing the competitive widgets. It may do this through the CO2 Cap and Trade.

Let us now change the scenario a bit farther. After I am in production with my new widget, including my government subsidy and a tax on the competitive widgets, the general market opinion is that my widget doesn't work any better than the competitive widgets. Initially, there was controversy, but that controversy had been temporarily silenced to the extent that government went ahead with my subsidy and taxed my competitors. Now, it seems quite clear that my widget is really non-competitive. Do I care? No! My government subsidy is still in effect, as is the tax on my competitors. I'm still making money, although it is now based on an unjustifiable assumption. Who suffers? The general public. They are paying for my subsidy and also paying higher prices for the taxed competitive widgets.

You can figure out what the various widgets are from the following participants: Coal-burning electric power plants, wind turbines, photovoltaic cells, carbon dioxide sequestration, Cap & Trade, gasoline vehicles, electric vehicles, air conditioning & refrigeration equipment, roof shingles, Portland cement, forest products, etc. Almost every widget of our society is either directly or indirectly affected by the premise that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to global warming, which is deleterious.

Companies at Copenhagen

2009-12-26T09:40:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

In their December 14 Issue, Chemical and Engineering News says that chemical companies were in attendance at Copenhagen pitching their own concepts concerning climate control. They also mention a few other companies, which are not direct chemical companies.

A key question is why were they there?
Dow Chemical said, "A predictable climate policy would protect the environment and unleash investment in new technologies". I believe most business owners will agree that predictable policies are always favorable toward progress. However, in the case of climate change, a "predictable climate policy" could be "make every effort to control climate" or it could be "adapt to changes in climate". A company such as Dow has the responsibility to maintain its health and existence through operating profitably. It cannot take on the responsibility of social reform. That is either left to society, or in the present case, to the Obama Administration. When a Presidential Administration decides on a policy, it would be ridiculously self-destructive for a company not to comply. In the case of climate control, Dow Chemical must support the Obama Administration's position for political reasons, whether they believe it is a justifiable policy or not.

However, Dow also has a financial incentive in having the possibility of supplying chemicals relating to carbon dioxide sequestration. If carbon dioxide were not declared a dangerous pollutant, there would be no opportunity to sell anything to control it. The situation is similar with the support given to the Copenhagen conclave by BASF, although no statement is reported other they have signed the United Nations "Seal the Deal" campaign.

Coca-Cola had more to say, which was dangerous, because it allows me an opportunity to ask some very pertinent questions. Coca-Cola says they will use carbon dioxide as a refrigerant for their large cooling equipment. Does this make sense? Carbon dioxide has already been designated as a dangerous greenhouse gas. All refrigerant gases tend to leak from their systems, because they are under pressure and mechanical failures do occur. If we accept the carbon dioxide/greenhouse philosophy, do we want to allow an opportunity for greater concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through this potential leakage source? For smaller equipment, Coca-Cola says they would use hydrocarbons as the refrigerant gas. Let's be more specific. Do they plan to use methane? Methane has already been judged to be a greenhouse gas, even more potent than carbon dioxide. Why would we want to allow potential leakage to the atmosphere?

There were other business organizations present at the Copenhagen Conference. Some were suppliers of enzymes to improve efficiency of alcohol production from straw, making isoprene from renewables, rather than petroleum, etc. However, none of these had any bearing on climate change. They merely involve products and processes to substitute for petroleum.

The bottom line on this is that establishing any myth will gain subsequent supporters, who see an opportunity for profit in pursuing and expanding the myth. Because these profit pursuers support the myth, the support improves credence in the myth itself. I respectfully request that you, as a statesman, not fall for these deceptions and glibly contribute to the further destruction of our economy. Global warming from increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a hoax. Climate control in general is not within our scientific reach at present, nor is it likely to be for many millennia.

The Psychology of Climate Control

2009-12-24T08:16:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

I awakened this Christmas Eve morning to find 8 inches of snow on my patio table. Snow was still coming down, and the wind was howling like a banshee. As you know, we don't usually get that much snow in Lubbock. Not that we don't need every bit of moisture we can get. The ducks were even walking on the bottoms of the local ponds (playas).

As I was protected from the storm in my nice warm house, I started to read about "Crossroads in Copenhagen" in the December 14th issue of Chemical and Engineering News. I read about Todd Stern, Yvo de Boer, Anders Turesson, and Lumumba Stanislau-Kaw Di-Aping and started to wonder where these people obtained their egos to believe that they can be instrumental in changing world climate. We can't even control local rainfall in Lubbock so that the ducks have a place to swim, nor can we cancel devastating tornadoes that come our way. Those are only local consequences of weather. If we can't do little jobs, how can we expect to do a big one like global climate control?

Perhaps the Sterns, de Boers, and Turessons obtained their superegos from universities, but that can't be completely right. I went through the same system and still recognize man's limitations. God made man and other animal forms to adapt to the systems he made up. We breathe oxygen by use of lungs. It's not up to us to decide whether we should redesign the lung or even change the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere. Look up on a starry night and see the billions of galaxies at a distance of what we call infinity, although we don't really understand it.

Yet, God made ego as part of man, presumably for purpose. That purpose may be a tool for persistence in pursuing adaptability or even expansion. But we also know the existence of excess. A super compassionate person weakens and ultimately destroys himself in accepting responsibility for underprivileged animals, human adults, and children beyond his capability. Unfortunately, persons of super ego do not destroy themselves in promoting projects beyond any logical ability for accomplishment. They destroy society.

God may have an answer for handling super egoists. Perhaps we already know it. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin have disappeared. Maybe we don't like the schedule of the disappearance, but God works on His own time schedule. Another thing that the super egoists can't control.

Will Global Warming Save Lives?

2009-12-20T13:44:00.001-08:00

E-mail the Congress:

EIN News says, "Subfreezing temperatures kill 15 in Europe".

What happened to "global warming"?

Before using billions of dollars into controlling CO2 emission, which also has no relationship to global warming, whether it exists or not, think whether you want to be a party to one of the grandest hoaxes of all time.

US Pledge on CO2 Control

2009-12-18T09:24:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Obama, Wen Meet As Clock Ticks. President Barack Obama said "time is running out" to salvage a deal to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases at a global summit here, as he and China's Premier Wen Jiabao "made progress" in a private meeting. But President Obama warned that the U.S. is prepared to walk away from the talks empty handed, rather than accept a "hollow victory" in which developing nations refuse to allow their own emissions controls to be monitored. (wsj.com)".

The position of Pres. Obama has a semblance of practicality. He is basically saying, "put up or shut up", which is a piece of age-old wisdom in any negotiations. I'm also glad to see that he is willing to walk away from the ridiculous proposal of trying to control climate change through CO2 emissions.

As an explanation, Pres. Obama is saying to Premier Wen and others, the US is on the verge of converting a myth into a gift of US dollars, providing other Copenhagen attendees swear allegiance to the myth and show it by making some small contribution.

If those attendees fall in line and Obama pledges US dollars, it will be up to the Senate to confirm or deny the pledge. The pressure on the Senate will be to support the pledge, primarily for the country's political ego. However, we know this would be wrong from scientific and financial viewpoints, and the Senate has no responsibility to confirm irresponsible promises of a communist President. In fact, the Senate would likely gain more worldwide respect, with increased cooperation from foreign countries, if they shoot down the Obama program.

Copenhagen Climate Change

2009-12-17T14:38:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Dramatic American Intervention Brings Climate Deal Closer. The United States today pledged support for a $100 billion annual climate protection fund in a move that could clinch a global deal just as the Copenhagen summit appeared to be heading for failure. Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, attached strong conditions to the US contribution to the fund, including a demand that China accept independent scrutiny of its emissions reductions. (timesonline.co.uk)".

Bad news! It looks like Pres. Obama is heading for a fight with the U.S. Senate. He had previously been advised in a Congressional letter to go easy. He has apparently taken no heed of this admonition. He will be looking for a substantial portion of the $100 billion gross pledge. Congress will have to come up with the money. Although there are some very knowledgeable Democrats, many of them are too stupid to analyze the situation from both the destructive financial aspect for the US and the ridiculous need to do something that doesn't need doing.

The only saving grace may be China. I believe these people are smart enough to know that any significant reductions in CO2 emissions will materially hurt their economy. They will also probably lean on autonomy, as justification for not allowing inspections. Iran has been very successful in this maneuver, with respect to atomic weapon development. In the case of China, I hope they use it to bring about a realization to the Obama Administration and Congress that trust alone is ridiculous. Pres. Reagan said, "Trust but verify". Sec. Clinton appears to be following that route, but will she be adamant in pursuing a program which never had a sound basis of reality?

On-Going Copenhagen Conference

2009-12-11T09:05:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Copenhagen Climate Summit Releases Draft Final Text. Rich countries are being asked to raise their pledges on tackling climate change under draft text of a possible final deal at the Copenhagen summit. A document prepared by one of the summit's chairmen calls on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25-45% from 1990 levels by 2020. (bbc.co.uk)".

"Rich countries" is undoubtedly intended to include the United States, even though we likely have more government debt than any other country and are operating at a substantial annual budget deficit.

"Raise their pledges" undoubtedly means contribute more dollars to so-called underdeveloped countries. Remember, that the underdeveloped countries also want cash in hand before any observance of catastrophe. Remember also, that the whole objective of this exercise is to equalize assets on a worldwide basis to the disadvantage of the American taxpayer.

"Calls on developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions" means US cutting energy usage, so that it tries to compete worldwide with one hand tied behind its back.

I have several time scientifically shown that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels makes no significant contribution to global warming.

Kill this hoax. It has no factual merit and will do substantial economic harm to the US.

Tough Line at Copenhagen Conference?

2009-12-10T09:01:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "In Copenhagen, U.S. Pushes for Emissions Cuts From China, Developing Nations. Two top Obama administration officials arrived Wednesday at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks that opened this week offering both diplomacy and a tough line: The United States is willing to be a full partner in fighting climate change, but the real problem is with China and the developing world. The day began with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson detailing the many measures President Obama has taken to cut greenhouse gases in the United States, telling a packed audience at the U.S. pavilion in the Bella Center, "We are seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world." (washingtonpost.com)".

"Tough line" sounds good, but is it realistic? It's a competitive world and the people who will lead as the top economic nation will be those having the highest energy usage per capita, with the highest emissions of CO2. The US is apparently willing to give up any attempt at economic superiority, by taking the initiative in cutting greenhouse gases (CO2) as described by EPA's Jackson. If I were China, Japan, Russia, or the EU, I would be ecstatic. Here is the US going into the fray with one hand tied behind its back, and we, the other major countries, don't have to do anything, because it's already being done.

Notice that there is also no reference to handouts to so-called "undeveloped countries". Has that need disappeared or is it a foregone conclusion that the US will put itself further into debt to satisfy those countries in their pursuit of a hoax?

Hard Times in Russia

2009-12-10T08:42:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Russians Losing Confidence in Putin Over Economy. All three of Russia's main polling agencies have registered a dip in the popularity of Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev in recent months as the economic crisis takes its toll on poll ratings that had remained strong for years. Twenty-six percent of 1,600 Russian polled in late November said they had confidence that "the current government could in the near future achieve positive changes" in the economy, down from 31 percent in October and 33 percent in September. (reuters.com)".

Russians are hurting economically and with the fall in popularity, their government will tend to be more pragmatic than ours. The Soviet regime previously collapsed because of national bankruptcy. They know the meaning of not making ends meet. I strongly doubt that they will be putting up any substantial money to those "Copenhagen Conference countries" who have their hand out on the climate warming scheme.

Are we going to be stupid enough to ignore Russian history and follow it down the road to national bankruptcy by throwing more money away?

Fleecing the US through Climate Change

2009-12-09T08:29:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Developing Nations Call for Rich to Aid Emissions Cuts. Developing countries at the United Nations climate summit demanded that rich nations commit money and accept sharper cuts in their emissions, highlighting the divisions among the world's rich and poor nations that stand in the way of a new global climate deal. Representatives of China, the world's largest greenhouse-gas emitter, said President Barack Obama's proposal that the U.S. reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 isn't ambitious enough. Su Wei, the Chinese chief negotiator, said industrialized countries must provide money and technology for developing countries as they seek to limit their greenhouse-gas emissions. (wsj.com)".

Here we have more proof that it's not about climate change. It's about money. Fear and compassion are being used to extract money from the US public through its government.

Copenhagen Fiasco

2009-12-07T15:12:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN New says, "Copenhagen Summit Urged to Take Climate Change Action. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss". Opening the two-week conference in the Danish capital, he told delegates from 192 countries a "strong and ambitious climate change agreement" was needed. About 100 leaders are to attend the meeting, which aims to reach agreement on supplanting the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The UN says an unprecedented number of countries have promised emissions cuts. (bbc.co.uk)".

Lars Rasmussen sounds like a sideshow barker. "Step right up folks and see the greatest sensation you will ever ........ I could afford a quarter for that or even a dollar, but billions of dollars?.

It doesn't say how many unprecedented number of countries have promised emission cuts or what those emission cuts will be. The most significant aspect is will they cut anything if you don't put up the money? They previously said the cash would have to be contributed first by the US, before they would sign on.

Copenhagen Climate Control

2009-12-04T12:46:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Europe Bypassed on Climate Summit. No political entity has pushed harder for the Copenhagen conference on climate change to succeed than the European Union. But just days before the opening of the United Nations-sponsored meeting, the Europeans have been largely pushed to the sidelines, watching as the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, seek to set the rules of the game. (nytimes.com)".

The European Union has never been a bystander on important matters where they have been involved. The only exceptions have been where the United States or some other entity was going to do the job for them.

In this case, I suspect the European Union is standing aside, because it is losing confidence in the scientific validity of climate change. This loss of confidence is probably going to result in their unwillingness to put up real money. This is a favorable development, considering that climate control is based on a myth. The fact that US Congressional Republicans have just called the Obama administration and the EPA to task on this particular matter is hopefully an indication that only China will set the rules of the game. You can be sure that China will not arbitrarily limit its emissions of carbon dioxide, which would require a considerable reduction in energy usage and thereby reduce their production capability.

The key question is whether the Obama administration and EPA will adhere to the Congressional Republican request to delay efforts at climate control. The Obama Administration may decide to ignore the Congressional Republican request, because it knows that it has a majority of Democratic votes in both the House and the Senate. While the EPA is a daughter agency spawned by Congress, it may also decide to ignore the Congressional Republican request for the same reasons. But once again, it boils down to who controls the vote on how important matters are decided.

Congressional Letter to Halt Climate Change

2009-12-04T12:41:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Global Warming E-Mails Prompt Republican Letter to EPA. Citing e-mails that critics say cast doubt on global warming, congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration Wednesday to suspend efforts to combat climate change until the controversy is resolved. In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, the lawmakers requested that a pending move to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act be halted, along with plans to limit emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources, "until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised." (latimes.com)".

I presume this refers to the large number of e-mails hacked from the University of East Anglia and now referred to as "Climategate".

This is really good news! I am ecstatic over Congressional Republicans requesting the Presidential Administration to suspend efforts at climate control and that the EPA halt efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

I believe they are doing this for the wrong reason of opinions, but have touched on the correct reason of requiring scientific consideration. However, we will take whatever we can get to eventually kill this ridiculous attempt at climate control based on a myth.

Climate Change on Grapes

2009-11-30T12:53:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Global Warming Could Make Fine Wines Go Dry. A leading organization in France's fabled wine industry sounded the alarm Friday about the ill-effects of rising temperatures on the livelihoods of winegrowers ahead of a climate summit in Copenhagen next month. Climate change has sped up harvests in Burgundy, altered the taste of Alsatian wines and disrupted hydration patterns of grapes grown along France's Mediterranean coast, an industry expert said. (bnd.com)".

This could be good for the US! We now have a high unemployment rate in Michigan. Consider the fact that global warming could lead to a warmer Michigan climate, which would be much more adaptable to growing grapes. Tending vines takes a lot of hand work. We could put a lot of people to work in Michigan as the new wine capital of the world.

Let's not have the US government monkey around with climate change legislation. If the climate is going to change, so be it. We will be able to adapt to it, with many advantages not now anticipated.

Cash for the Climate Change Hoax

2009-11-30T12:46:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Upfront Money Needed to Ease UN Climate Deal. Money on the table -- perhaps $10 billion a year or more -- could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the UN conference could end in discord. The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions. (chron.com)".

Do you want more proof that the whole climate change consideration is about money?

It used to be that the US, through Foreign AID would help out countries who got into problems through their own stupidity. Those were matters "after-the-fact". The existing AID program already has its deficiencies. Will we now try to capture the title of "Extreme Stupidity" by paying for something before it happened or even without any guarantee that it will happen?

Copenhagen Conference

2009-11-28T16:16:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

Here is President Obama's specific push on climate control, which I mentioned in my recent e-mail.

EIN News says, "Obama to Attend Climate Talks in Copenhagen, Set Goals to Reduce Emissions. The White House announced Wednesday that President Obama will attend U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen next month and commit the United States to specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The administration's decision to identify a series of goals, including cutting emissions over the next decade "in the range of" 17 percent below 2005 levels, is a calculated risk, given that Congress has never set mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. (washingtonpost.com).

He is trying to "grab all the marbles". If you let him get away with this, he will likely grab every game in the future, and you will be left "holding the bag". When the public sees the penalty they have to pay for this deception, you will lose your position, if you have made no attempt to seriously defeat this proposal.

Copenhagen Conference

2009-11-28T15:57:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

You replied to one of my e-mails as follows, "Should the Obama Administration agree to a treaty at the Copenhagen meeting, the United States Senate would need to ratify that treaty for the United States to implement it. I am deeply concerned by the Obama Administration's pursuit of an energy policy that could lead to America's reduction of industrial output and reduce our competitiveness with other countries. I opposed legislation known as "cap and trade" that would tax carbon output when it came before the House of Representatives, and I will continue to oppose any costly mandate on CO2 reduction, particularly as long as China, India and other emerging industrial countries are exempt from agreements and do not make similar commitments."

I appreciate your reply and your position.

The general public has been overcoming its fear of global warming from a continued barrage of negative information, including the release of a stack of original e-mails showing at best the difference among scientists concerning the validity of the consideration, including greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. There are now seems to be less than a majority of voters who believe global warming is a valid consideration.

In spite of the change in public attitude, President Obama and his Administration continue to push a program, which would involve the United States in a disastrous energy-use capability and markedly increase the US deficit, as it delivers funds to undeveloped countries for their support in the fiasco.

President Obama is placing his reputation on the line, in the belief that Congress will support him in about anything he says or commits to with regard to climate control. This is now a key element in determining whether the US is controlled by President Obama or the U.S. Congress. The fight is on! If you and your associates in the House, and especially in the Senate which will be required to ratify a treaty, are able to defeat President Obama on this issue, he stands a good chance of rapidly losing face and his ability to do further damage to the economy and individual freedoms of the American people.

I am sure that Representatives and Senators have been concerned with challenging President Obama previously, because of his high public approval, which implied that you might be voted out of office if you challenged. That has now changed. President Obama's public approval is considerably reduced and the majority of those who maintain his support are in a non-reliable voting category. Now is the time to institute the challenge, because the voting public is likely moving toward a more conservative position, and you may be voted out if you support President Obama or do nothing to help in his ouster.

2009-11-24T15:35:00.000-08:00

E-mail exchange with son-in-law:

GJW: I wish to touch this issue once more.
First, my [earlier] sentence was badly written: "No one will argue that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect of the atmosphere". I meant to agree with you, meaning one would "argue" i.e. "try to defend" the position that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect.

ACS: I still disagree. The whole position of the CO2 enthusiasts is that CO2 in the atmosphere allows incoming radiation from the sun without any insulating effect of the CO2 at that time. However, radiation from the Earth to outer space is later impeded by the insulating effect of CO2.

GJW: I am beginning to think the word "insulating" is not getting to the issue. And recall that the claim is that other wavelengths than IR are what are "converted" at the earth's surface into IR re-radiated toward space, so that CO2 would in fact absorb incoming IR but would allow other wavelengths to pass.

ACS: The word "insulating" does get at the issue. It means retard passage and that is the essence of the 'greenhouse" claim. Greenhousers say CO2 in the atmosphere retards passage of heat from Earth to outer space.
There are two mechanisms by which the greenhouse theory could work. Atmospheric CO2 would have to allow all incoming radiation to strike the Earth's surface but not allow heat or any radiation associated with heat to escape. Or, all heat or radiation associated with it from incoming radiation is absorbed and regenerated as heat. We know this second one is false by the example of the green house, wherein heat is generated within the structure.

GJW: I am not sure I agree that Infrared radiation is heat, which is what you seem to imply. It is electromagnetic radiation, like light or UV or X-ray, and generates kinetic energy of molecules that absorb it. So the white and black surfaces differ in their absorption and reflection, and they may also differ in their consequent radiation of Infrared, but that infrared is not heat and has to strike another molecule to excite and generate heat.

ACS: OK. We need not argue about whether infrared radiation is heat. The point is that the sun's radiation is composed of many wavelengths of energy which are delivered to the Earth. At least some of those wavelengths are converted to heat. Take a greenhouse, which appears to be a traditional example. The sun's radiation travels through the transparent atmosphere and the transparent glass or plastic covering of the greenhouse, without any apparent heating of the atmosphere or the glass/plastic. The radiation than strikes nontransparent services. Some of these are black or mixtures of black-and-white and are able to convert the incoming radiation to heat. Pure white surfaces are apparently reflective and any radiation striking those services tends to bounce, until it finds a surface which can convert the convertible portion of radiation to heat.
I have no difficulty with the mechanism you describe. It is not really dissimilar to what I have said. Infrared or other portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are all energy, some of which can be converted to heat by striking certain substance molecules. Other nontransparent molecules can convert a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum into electrons (photovoltaics). If a molecule becomes "excited" by absorption of an energy quantum, that is only a temporary situation. That molecule will return to a steady state by loss of the energy quantum, and the energy quantum is available for conversion to heat, if it has not already done so.

GJW: if this is true, then the gases that can absorb IR light are the ones that "trap" what is re-radiated from the earth. In this case "trap" means absorb and release heat into the atmosphere.

ACS: I agree that the previous paragraph is true, but what you have just said is not. If CO2 is a "trap" gas, it will absorb incoming IR from the Sun and convert it to heat it at that time. It would not wait for the conversion until the IR has been reflected and is now on its way to outer space.

GJW: This point is moot because as I mentioned above it is other wavelengths that are "converted" and re-radiated as IR that are in question.

ACS: I don't think it is moot, because we are talking about heat and any radiation that acts as a source of this heat. Non-reactive radiation wave lengths are irrelevant.

GJW: CO2, Water, Methane, etc, can absorb IR while O2 and N2 do not, and this absorptivity, not thermal conductivity, is what greenhouse effect is about.

ACS: I believe this part is really important. Let's say water and methane are similar to CO2 and just talk about CO2. If a molecule of CO2 absorbs a quantum of IR, the molecule is excited on a temporary basis. It will return to its steady state by either releasing the quantum of IR unchanged or converting the quantum of IR to another form of energy, such as heat.
You say 02 and N2 do not do that. I suspect you have no basis for that claim.

GJW: Well there is a theoretical basis which is fairly compelling to me just now. I have inserted something off the web below. See what you think.

ACS: I have read it. An interesting theory to explain a result, which is only speculation. His last sentence says, "This is the mechanism by which greenhouse gases absorb energy from infrared photons." But, what is the new nature of the now infrared photon activated CO2 molecule? Is the activation temporary? How short the duration of activation? What is the molecule doing in the activated state? Bouncing around more? Does that generate heat from friction with other molecules? Consider the gas laws and gas theory. As molecules get hotter, they are said to move faster. We know that they pound harder on a container wall; increased pressure.
All this doesn't really tell us anything. Let's track the heat. We could get some facts by going back to to the experiment I previously cited. Irradiate different gases and measure their temperatures before and after radiation.
It would also be illogical that there would be a plus or minus effect. You might be partially correct in saying that CO2 has a greater propensity to absorb and convert IR to heat than does oxygen or nitrogen. However, this could be easily demonstrated in the laboratory. Take an enclosed volume of pure CO2, shoot it with IR, and measure the CO2 temperature. Do the same with 02, N2, or any other gas. I suspect you will find a slight rise in temperature for all of them. CO2 may give the most rise, but then we have to discuss the fact that CO2 is present in the atmosphere only to the extent of 0.038%. We also have to go back to the previous (third) statement involving why CO2 in the atmosphere would not have converted incoming IR to heat, rather than wait until the IR was outgoing.

GJW: I sure would like to get this all sorted out.

ACS: I don't believe this can be sorted out at the present time. Only time will give an appropriate resolution. This would be akin to the round versus flat Earth in Galileo's time.

GJW: Under a separate email I am sending an article on new ideas for cooling the troposphere. (if needed)

ACS: I've covered that separately. It is mostly silly.

2009-11-24T15:12:00.001-08:00

E-mail exchange with son-in-law:

ACS:
We agree on who is in charge. Man causes most of his own problems in trying to remedy perceived imperfections.

Big problems do require big solutions. The difficulty is usually determining whether there is a big problem and whether the supposed solution will be either ineffective in the grand scheme or will do more harm than perceived good.

I suppose DDT took care of the locust swarms in Africa, and that was a perceived advantage. Were environmentalists later motivated by the Holy Spirit to observe that DDT apparently caused thinning of the eggshells of certain birds and led to DDT being banned worldwide? The biggest health problem in Africa is now malaria, as a result of anopheles mosquito proliferation. Perhaps this is in the grand scheme.

Some problems are easy to see. Others less so. Los Angeles smog was visible and poisoning of rivers by mining runoff could be tracked fairly easily. The Los Angeles smog was caused by effluent from millions of vehicles and was controllable by catalytic converters. Similarly, poisoned rivers from mining runoff was caused by actions of one or a few persons. That could also be controlled and in many cases corrected by a legal obligation to the perpetrator.

I agree that everything is a trade-off, and with billions of people, there will always be someone who has a perception that there is a need for action. I don't believe now is the time for control of carbon dioxide emissions, which will cost additional billions of dollars. It is time for further study to determine the need for control. That study should be undertaken by people who can look the science relatively objectively, without some previously developed notion concerning absolute purity or the like, or without a financial or other beneficial interest in the result. This involves individuals, groups, and even countries. The latest information on the Copenhagen Treaty is that underdeveloped nations (mostly African) will not support a UN proposal unless the United States guarantees significant financial aid (pay off, bribe, etc.).

Dad

-----Original Message-----
From: Woodward,Gary,ST. LOUIS,Palatability Management [mailto:Gary.Woodward@rdmo.nestle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Arthur Sucsy
Subject: RE: If Emissions Cuts Are Not Enough that it will

As to the matter of "who's in charge". I couldn't agree more and I am pretty convinced that extra CO2 will generate counter forces like really big trees etc which will compensate. A couple of volcanoes blow their tops and the sulfur aerosol will be taken care of.

But I am quoting a man who was very influential to me as a youngster when I remind you that "Big problems require big solutions". He was referring to the locust swarms in Africa and the boon of DDT. On a smaller scale, there are lakes that used to be and Los Angeles smog that used to be overwhelming and mining runoff that and on and on because we treated these as someone else's problem (which it was), but many of these have been fixed by rules and regs and lots of dollars. Everything is a trade-off and to someone there is a line that when crossed triggers a need for action.

gjw

Copenhagen Conference

2009-11-24T15:01:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "At Least 60 Leaders to Attend Climate Conference. Prospects for a global deal at the climate change summit in Copenhagen next month have been given a boost after it emerged that more than 60 presidents and prime ministers plan to attend. Leaders from Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Japan, Indonesia and Brazil are among the latest to have confirmed that they will travel to Denmark on December 7 to attend the climate conference. (net.au)".

This is bad news. However, there are still some encouraging aspects. Notice that it is now a "conference", rather than a "treaty". Also while 60 leaders (presumably countries) are expected to attend, only seven are mentioned here. Presumably the US will attend and since the conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark will attend. This brings the total named attendees to 9. Who will be the other 51 attendees? I suspect it will be mostly African countries, who have previously tipped their hands by indicating they could be bought. They were holding out for a whole sack of money previously, but have apparently now decided that half a sack is better than nothing. The money is not expected to come from the named attendees. It is expected to come from the US. However, we are already broke. Will we go deeper into debt to redistribute wealth based on a myth of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions? Only Congress will be able to answer that one.

Scientific Feud over Global Warming

2009-11-23T14:32:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Climate Emails Stoke Debate; Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud Over Global Warming. The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming. The correspondence between dozens of climate-change researchers, including many in the U.S., illustrates bitter feelings among those who believe human activities cause global warming toward rivals who argue that the link between humans and climate change remains uncertain. (wsj.com)".

I read a number of these e-mails, which were sent to me as a stack by my nephew. They are difficult reading, because they use a lot of professional (?) jargon, nick names, abbreviations, and other writing shortcuts. However, I think the Wall Street Journal has summed up correctly in reporting that there is a lot of confusion and difference of opinion on the scientific basis and promotion of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. I would go one step further in noting that the original proponents established the theory with a religious zeal, but could not get everybody on board. I find this equivalent to the Jones situation in Guyana. Not everybody took the cyanide laced Kool-Aid.

I have said before and continue to assert that we should kill any attempts to control climate through limiting carbon dioxide emissions. The low carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has no significant effect on global warming, even if emissions increase the concentration twofold. The whole Cap and Trade program is a financial scam intended to redistribute wealth, increase government size, and line the pockets of a few.

If we cannot kill Climate Control now, we should do our best to postpone it. Time will show the unrealistic aspects of the proposal, but once we have accepted the program, it will be almost impossible to backtrack, even with the ultimate determination that the program is based on a hoax.

Misguided Climate-C Hange

2009-11-20T08:31:00.001-08:00

Open e-mail to Sen. Klobuchar:

Dear Sen. Klobuchar,
Chemical and Engineering News had an article entitled "Climate-Change Maneuvers" in their 11/9/09 issue. In that article, they quoted you as follows, "We want to make sure new wind-turbine plants are built in Minnesota, not in Denmark and that the next car battery plants are in Youngstown, Ohio not in Shanghai".

I agree completely with your statement, but may I respectfully suggest that Sen. Boxer apparently has you confused with respect to a Climate-Change bill. The Climate-Change bill that Sen. Boxer and others are promoting is fundamentally a control on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and an associated Cap and Trade program. It has nothing to do with wind turbines and car batteries.

Your interest would involve an Energy bill, not a Climate-Change bill. An attempt might be made to sandwich wind turbines and car batteries into a Climate-Change bill in an attempt to gain your support, but associated damage will be done by Cap and Trade. There is no plausible scientific data to indicate that the very low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any bearing on global warming and any attempts to control it would be silly.

Please keep your eye on promoting energy development and avoid side issues, which are usually introduced as financial scams.

Delayed Senate Climate Bill

2009-11-19T14:57:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Senate to Put Off Climate Bill Until Spring. Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday they would put off debate on a big climate-change bill until spring, in a sign of weakening political will to tackle a long-term environmental issue at a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty. Legislation on health care, overhauling financial markets and job creation will be considered before the Senate takes up a measure to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases linked to climate change, Senate Democratic leaders said Tuesday. (wsj.com)".

GREAT NEWS! Perhaps we are making a little headway, as we continue to beat the drum against the ridiculousness of trying to control atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, when there is no plausible scientific data indicating that carbon dioxide has any significant effect on global warming in the extremely low concentration that exists.

The only thing better than a postponement until spring would be a realization on the part of the Democratic members of the Senate that the public is starting to understand the financial sleight of hand, which is the whole basis of a climate bill involving carbon dioxide.

Birth and Climate Control

2009-11-19T14:15:00.001-08:00

EIN News says, "Birth Control: the Most Effective Way of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, UN Report Suggests. Investing in birth control to reduce population growth could be more effective in cutting greenhouse gas emissions than building wind turbines or nuclear power stations, according to a United Nations report. Taking action to prevent one billion births by 2050 would save as much carbon dioxide as constructing 2 million giant wind turbines. (timesonline.co.uk)".

A very innovative thought and probably on target.

The only bothersome aspect is who wants to control carbon dioxide? It's a silly idea when one considers carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming and is only a financial hoax.

Copenhagen Climate Treaty

2009-11-16T09:02:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "Poor Nations Insist on Climate Treaty Next Month. Poor nations insisted on Monday that a legally binding climate treaty is still possible in Copenhagen next month even though U.S. President Barack Obama and many other leaders reckon it has slipped out of reach. Hosts Denmark, which says time is too short for a full deal at the December 7-18 summit, suggested at a meeting of about 40 environment ministers in Copenhagen setting a deadline of perhaps another year to work out a legally binding deal. (reuters.com)".

We are clearly seeing what is happening here. "Poor" nations were originally holding out for big dollar grants from the US using climate control as an excuse. Now that they see that this is slipping from their grasp, they are willing to negotiate for lesser amounts. All of this has nothing to do with any basic need for climate control, which most of us know is an unjustified pie-in-the-sky.

Someone, either EIN News or the "poor nations", doe not seem to realize that a legally binding climate agreement in Copenhagen is not possible, because of US government procedures. The US Administration may sign the agreement, but it is not legally binding until the Senate ratifies it. We need to continue working on the Senate to convince various members that any climate control is ridiculous in scientific concept, and acceptance of any climate control treaty would compound the folly.

International Climate Agreement

2009-11-13T12:41:00.001-08:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "U.S. Considers Backing Interim International Climate Agreement. Less than a month before negotiators will meet in Copenhagen with the lofty goal of crafting a deal to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is considering endorsing a limited short-term climate pact and deferring more ambitious action until next year. The scaled-back strategy is driven largely by the realities of domestic politics: The administration is hampered in making an international deal because Congress has not passed climate legislation. So any global pact would be postponed until next year when it would be constrained by whatever domestic climate legislation Congress enacts. (washingtonpost.com)".

This is real good news! I may be deceiving myself, but it also may be that I, and many others like me, are starting to make some impact with respect to enlightening the public and Congress that increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not LEED to global warming. Government has no business attempting to control climate at this stage of technological reality. Finally, a little bit of that reality may be leaking into the Obama Administration. At least, the Obama administration may be accepting the political fact that Congress seems to be less certain about greenhouse gases than they have been previously.

Keep pounding the drum. Kill any proposed bills with respect to climate control. They are ridiculous in concept and would do considerable damage to the financial stability of the US. As you assure other countries that you will not be endorsing payment of billions of dollars to them, we will be pleasantly surprised to note that their own endorsements will be eliminated and the whole system will collapse.

Climate Control by Senate

2009-11-10T08:39:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Senate:

EIN News says, "Senate Climate Battle Shifts Onto New Turf. The Senate climate debate shifts into a higher gear this week as advocates look beyond the partisan gridlock that engulfed the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the broader quest of finding 60 votes for floor passage. Tomorrow, the Finance and Energy and Natural Resources committees dive into the issue with a pair of simultaneous hearings on climate policy. (nytimes.com)".

Climate control would be about the last coffin nail needed to guarantee our destruction of lifestyle benefits and bring misery to all US citizens.

As you continue to consider various proposals for climate control, I suggest you ask the following questions:
1.) Is increasing carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere our major concern at this time?
2.) If so, why do we think so?
3.) Is it related to the IPPC proposal of greenhouse gases leading to global warming?
4.) Are we aware that all gases in the atmosphere impede radiation of the Earth's heat to outer space?
5.) Are we aware that the greenhouse effect of any gas is related to its concentration in the atmosphere?
6.) Are we aware that the present concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%?
7.) Are we aware that at the present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, its effect on global warming is only 0.015% and that this effect is negligible?
8.) Are we aware that are superior standard of living is based on consumption of fossil fuels with production of carbon dioxide and that elimination or reduction of carbon dioxide will significantly deteriorate our lifestyle?
9.) Are we aware that attempts to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is likely a mechanism for other political aspiration, such as world redistribution of wealth?
10.) Are we sufficiently skeptical concerning motivations for climate control to seriously investigate whether there is a sound scientific basis for such?

Democratic Push on Climate Control

2009-11-08T15:17:00.000-08:00

Open letter to U.S. Senate:

EIN News says, "Democrats Push Climate Bill Through Panel Without GOP Debate. In a step that reflected deep partisan divisions in the Senate over the issue of global warming, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee pushed through a climate bill on Thursday without any debate or participation by Republicans. The measure passed by an 11-to-1 vote with the support of all the Democratic committee members except Senator Max Baucus of Montana. The seven Republicans boycotted the committee meetings this week, saying they had not had sufficient time to study the bill and demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct a thorough study of its economic costs and benefits. (nytimes.com)".

The Republicans are on the right track here. A climate control bill involving carbon dioxide Cap and Trade would be a serious blow to our economy. A combination of the Obama/Pelosi Healthcare legislation and Climate Control would be a devastating financial body blow to the US, from which I doubt recovery would be possible. Establishing law on either one of these legislation would place the US in serious financial jeopardy, but recovery would be theoretically possible.

I have mentioned time and again, with technical data, that control of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is completely unjustified. This Democratic attempt is a perversion of science to achieve some other goal. That goal is likely to be a redistribution of US assets to other countries
on the premise that a world government would be ideal.

It is almost inconceivable to me that a large number of Democrats would believe in advantages of world government. I suspect that they "know not what they do". Since Republicans seem to be on the right track, it behooves them to take the responsibility to educate their fellow Democratic Senators concerning a proper position of the United States as a world neighbor.

Global Warming Fear Mongering

2009-11-05T08:41:00.000-08:00

Open Letter to Senators Graham and Lieberman:

EIN News says, "Senate Trio to Pursue Separate Climate Talks; Group Aims for Bill That Could Secure 60 Votes. Even before a Senate committee could begin marking up the "Kerry-Boxer" climate bill, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday a separate track of negotiations over climate policy that makes his original bill look somewhat irrelevant. Kerry said he, Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) would work with business groups and the White House and seek a compromise that could get 60 votes in the Senate. (washingtonpost.com)

I have the utmost respect for the integrity of both of you Senators. Unfortunately, I believe you have been caught up in the fear mongering of global warming and have not given adequate consideration to whether there is any sound scientific basis to whether carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global warming.

I have gone into considerable detail on many posts to my blog on Climate Control and in individual communications, which I have generally made public. This information has likely escaped your attention, but can be seen at http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com.

Knowing that you are quite busy with various Senate bills, I now give you the bottom line on Climate Control.

All gases in the atmosphere are greenhouse gases. Some have more and some have less greenhouse effect. However, the greenhouse effect is a combination of its heat transmission and its concentration in the atmosphere. Pure carbon dioxide is a more effective greenhouse gas than are pure nitrogen and oxygen, which are the main components of the atmosphere. However, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%. Calculation shows that it's contribution to the total greenhouse effect is 0.015%. If we double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's greenhouse effect would still be only 0.03% of the total.

Do you want to spend billions of dollars controlling something that's not worth controlling? Consider also that the greater the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the better the availability of raw material for plant growth.

I respectfully recommend that you folks give up this self-destructive program.

The Greenhouse Effect and Greenhouse Gases

2009-11-03T06:50:00.000-08:00

E-mail to Congress:
My son-in-law, who has a PhD in Food Technology, and I have been having some discussions on climate control. The latest has been a question-and-answer session, in which I thought you might be interested as follows:

Dr.: No one will argue that CO2 contributes significantly to the insulating effect of the atmosphere. That is obvious from the thermal conductivity data.

ACS: I absolutely disagree. I claim that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes no significant contribution to the insulating effect, and that is based on the fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is only 0.038%. I also claim that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will still have an insignificant insulating effect.

Dr.: Here are a couple of questions: 1) What is the temperature of space? 2) What is the thermal conductivity of space?

ACS: 1.) 4 degrees K. (Wikipedia). 2.) I don't believe there is a measured thermal conductivity of outer space. Thermal conductivity is a measure of heat transmission through a substance. Outer space is considered devoid of substance.

Dr.: So when the other guys talk about greenhouse gas they are definitely not talking about the property of thermal conductivity, nor of heat capacity, but rather of a molecule's ability to absorb long wavelength IR (which itself is not heat) and then transform it into heat.

ACS No. They're going around Red Robin's Barn. We previously covered that. A black body (molecules) is absorbing long wavelength radiation directly from the Sun. The black body transforms (converts) it into heat. We don't really care about that mechanism. We are concerned only with the result, which is heat, and which is the major aspect of the discussion on global warming. Once you have heat generated, from whatever source, you then have to consider its transmission from one location to another. I have previously discussed it as radiation from the Earth to outer space, including its passage through the mixed gases of the atmosphere, which impede its transmission and can be changed by compositional gas changes in the atmosphere.

Dr.: Thermal conductivity is the ability of a substance to transmit heat from one point to another simply powered by the thermal gradient.

ACS: Absolutely correct.

Dr.: Obviously the blanket effect or insulation effect is part of the thermal equilibrium of the earth as you described, but it does not seem to be "the greenhouse effect".

ACS: It is the "greenhouse effect". Consider a greenhouse. The sun's radiation passes through the glass or plastic roof, strikes the internal surface of the greenhouse, where it is converted to heat. The heat transmission out of the greenhouse is then impeded by the glass or plastic roof. The glass or plastic roof is serving as a blanket or insulation to retain heat within the greenhouse. In the case of the Earth, the atmosphere is serving as a blanket or insulation to retain heat on the Earth's surface.

Dr.: I don't know if you saw my second email which looked much like the first but there is a section if you hit the advanced button at the top where they discuss why they think N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases. How do greenhouse gases "work"?

ACS: I read it. It's a lot of gobbledygook. All gases are greenhouse gases. Some are more and some less efficient as insulators to the passage of heat. One example involves the manufacture of low-heat transfer windows. They are double pane with a layer of argon between the two panes. Why not use air? It is less expensive than argon. The answer is that argon has a thermal conductivity of only 16.36 mW/(m.K), while the thermal conductivity of air is about 24.
I haven't seen any mechanism for how greenhouse gases work, but I'll take a stab at it. The molecules or atoms of substance have a certain affinity for heat. The heat may be particles or plasma or whatever, but in any case, heat is real. The affinity of the substance to capture and retain heat is different from one material substance to another. Time basis must also be included in that analysis. Two substances may capture the same amount of heat, but one substance may release it more quickly than the other. The longer retention time would be a measure of the substance's insulating capacity. In the case of gases, that would be at least partially equivalent to a "greenhouse effect".

Dr.: Thanks for taking the time for the long and logical answer. I only hate to think the large disagreement between the proposed problem and your well thought out answers is a problem of definitions or, as you have pointed out, as a problem of sophistry and doublespeak. Thus my attempt is to get the clearest ideas from the web and try to size them up in light of your objections.

ACS: It is my pleasure to try to clarify truth, where I believe falsehood is prevalent for reasons of personal gain. I am a stickler for honesty. When I suspect dishonesty through hiding information in 1200-page congressional bills or scientific papers with tremendous amounts of unrelated data tending to confuse issues, it tends to get my back up. The scientific world has a high degree of complexity. Many dishonest persons capitalize on that complexity and exaggerate it further for their own specific ends. My routine approach is to try to simplify these things to the lowest common denominator. Warren Buffett has said that if one doesn't understand the basis of a financial investment, one shouldn't be in it. The same goes for science. God gave us the ability to understand. If we don't understand it, it's probably not real.

Dr.: I hope you are not finding me dense or thick-headed.

ACS: Not at all. I tell my fifth graders, "Don't believe everything you hear or read. Always analyze it with respect to what you already know. Sometimes you will not know what the right answer is. Hold it in your mind, perhaps days or even years, and eventually it will likely be resolved."

Climate Control Freebies

2009-10-30T14:50:00.001-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "A Nuclear Power Boost for Bill; Tax Incentives Offered With Climate Measure. Will a heaping spoonful of nuclear power help Congress swallow a climate bill? The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats are wooing wavering Democrats and Republicans to back a climate bill by dangling federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, even though financial analysts warn that huge capital needs and a history of cost overruns would constrain what many lawmakers hope will be a "nuclear renaissance." (washingtonpost.com)".

May I suggest that you and your associates, PLEASE PLEASE not fall for one of the greatest sucker baits of all times. That is, a free ice cream cone with the purchase of a 10-year magazine subscription.

If you believe we should have incentives to support nuclear power plant construction, legislate them directly. Don't tie them into any ridiculous climate bill.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming - Union of Concerned Scientists

2009-10-30T09:31:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine received from a previously confirmed Marxist an invitation to view the following website: http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

He replied as follows:
C,
Sorry, but I still believe that this is a political initiative and that the majority of honest scientists, whose voices are muted by the liberal media, disagree.

Intellectually, these same liberal scientists claim that anyone who has faith is not applying scientific principals, yet if the same rigor is applied to the global warming arguments, they fail and these same scientists are not claiming the need for faith as in a spirit world. Global warming has become a religion along with humanism and we are all required to believe as part of
a state religion. The ACLU is the instrument that is working to force this upon the majority.

My own logic of what I understand as to how the world works and the pure quantitative numbers and the natural servo affect of how the world keeps its
balance, makes the arguments about global warming ridiculous. The fact that some of the leaders have openly laughed about the smoke and mirrors they have used during hearing to convince Washington types to believe, further convinces me that even the most vocal proponents do not really believe, but simply are taking advantage of a perceived or manufactured crisis.

Because the global warming scientists have had to change the theme to climate change because the data clearly does not support global warming, it
is ridiculous to expect any thinking person to accept the limitation of greenhouse gases to prevent warming. Of course, a single volcano can change everything on an order of magnitude greater than all of the carbon that man has produced in the past 200 years. The thermal inertia of the oceans is so great that the arguments are ridiculous. That plus conflicting data are
only part of the reasons why the real scientists who have their voice muted, so strongly disagree.

A few years ago, these same folk were screaming about global cooling so that they could take over to save the world. Then it went to global warming and most recently global climate change. We are still supposed to bow down to the global warming issues and impose the greatest tax increase in the
history of the United States as part of the effort mentioned by the folks promoting one world government. I heard a video on TV the other day where one of the CZAR leaders was commenting that after the United States is taken down, that the world government advocates who are causing us to spend ourselves to the point that we will lose our very sovereignty, will never again allow another country to rise to a super power like the United States. They will take them down before that can ever happen again. With national health care, cap and trade, and basic looting of the spoils as the liberal leaders' reward, the job is almost complete and they can talk openly because
they feel that it is too late to stop them now.

In my part of the world, the mood is that people are not just scared for the first time in their lives, they are literally terrified for our country's survival and angry at the total betrayal of their representative from both political parties. They are terrified about the future for their children because they now realize that they have also been betrayed by the liberal
controlled education system so that the kids do not understand what must be done to preserve our democracy, our sovereignty, our culture, and our
prosperity. Of course Texas is conservative, not bankrupt yet, and the target of the liberal establishment to force us into the same condition as the rest of the country. And with the mass influx of illegals, the power will shift. I had a Hispanic tell me some twenty years ago right to my face here in conservative Lubbock, Texas, "we will soon own you because we will out breed you and some day out vote you and what you have will be ours".

Rwanda was the bread basket of all Africa for nearly 400 years until the tribes migrated across their boarders, took over, killed the producers and
took their land, changed the name of the country, and now they and all those who depended upon them are starving if they were not killed in the tribal
wars and genocide that followed. Will we not learn from anything? Europe is waking up, but too late to prevent the eventual takeover and rule by
the Muslims. And we want to be like Europe? Now or the future version? But are not all cultures equal, except the evil United States, of course?

It is probably best to not keep sending me information about the Union of Concerned Scientist. They have never had credibility or integrity as far as I can remember because they have consistently demonstrated that the
political ends justify the means with respect to their scientific positions.

While I do not accept everything that George Bush or Chaney say, I agree with them more than I disagree, but I recognize that you feel towards them the same way I feel about the ACLU, his highness Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or most of the anti-American legislators including Barney Frank with his proposals to legalize pedophilia and protect his Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae bonuses and graft, or Waxman, or Chuck Schumer as they display no integrity on the judicial committees, or even the list of turncoat
Republicans that campaign as conservatives but always vote liberal on anything that is critical to preserving freedoms or the nation.

P and I work hard, are fair to employees and customers, pay our outrageous taxes, give to charity both time and money, help individuals one
on one, have to deal with an ever increasing and abusive and stifling government that exists to perpetuate their existence and raise money from
their subjects unfortunate enough to be singled out for trumped up fines and fees, and are subject to being wiped out at any time by the abusive and
corrupt court system based upon others' irresponsibility. We are tired of supporting too many other people who exist to be entertained and served. We are tired of being lied to by every agency of government and subject to severe retribution if we protest or fail to accept the lies. If we behaved like any branch of government we would be imprisoned. When we die, we are
supposed to give our after-tax savings and capital needed to preserve our businesses and employee jobs to the government, so they can redistribute it
to those who are not as dedicated. Of course that is after the government itself consumes a majority of what they robbed from us. Our founding
fathers, who are now held in contempt by our educational institutions as greedy white men who were slave owners, warned us that our democracy would fail if the very things happening now come to pass. And the documents they created provided the basis for building a free and strong republic as well as for eventual abolition of slavery throughout most of the world even though it took a century and a civil war. As one can observe, leaders and most of established Washington, also holds in contempt these leaders and the principals that created the greatest nation in the history of the world But then, we now learn that the unfavorable outcome is intended. As you can
observe, you hit a land mine because this sort of teed me off. And if I mention this to P, it will really set her off, so I will not do so.

2009-10-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

E-mail to Congress:

The Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html) continues to push the ridiculous theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels, have a significant effect on global warming. They give 14 references, but I suggest you not bother to look them up. They're all based on "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007".

If you go to that primary report (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf), on to the Technical Summary, and then to page 23 on Greenhouse Gases, you will find a nice discussion of radiative forcing, increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, ice core data, etc. The key point is you will find nothing with respect to any quantitative consideration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a significant greenhouse gas affecting global warming.

What the IPCC report and all subsequent regurgitations miss is the following:
"Thermal conductivity is the ability to pass heat through a substance. The reverse is insulation. The lower the thermal conductivity of a gas, the less ability it has to pass heat and therefore allows heat to build up in a greenhouse effect. Thermal conductivity of air (assume 0% CO2} is 33.3 mW/m. For CO2, it is 25.1. Therefore, the greenhouse effect of pure CO2 versus pure air is 25% higher.

However, the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is now accepted to be about 0.034%. At this concentration, the present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, contributes to 0.0095% of all global warming (25 X 0.00034).

Another way to say it is that present carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere contributes 0.0095% more greenhouse effect than if there were no carbon dioxide. If we double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 0.068%, the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect would still be only 0.019%. That would leave air contributing 99.981% to any total greenhouse effect."

I have presented that information more than a year ago. No one has come forth with a challenge. They continue to deal in supposition and innuendo.

I respectfully ask you to spread this information around, so that it can either be debated or used to give all climate control legislation involving carbon dioxide the indecent burial it deserves.

Copenhagen Treaty

2009-10-23T10:07:00.001-07:00

Open letter to a friend:

I watched the presentation of Lord Monckton on the YouTube link, which you provided.

My daughter and I have been discussing Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty. Monckton recently had an interview with Glenn Beck, and the details of that interview are on a Glenn Beck website. The subject matter of the interview is about the same as we have just seen on YouTube.

Lord Monckton claims to have been a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He also claims to be a nonscientist, and that is believable by his twice used term "burn carbon dioxide". Carbon dioxide doesn't burn. It is a product of combustion of fossil fuels. However, I have not seen that he makes any radical errors in judgment concerning political matters. In summary, I believe he is reputable and responsible, and we should listen to what he says.

With respect to the Copenhagen Treaty, Greenpeace is a leading proponent. Greenpeace is a non--governmental organization (NGO). Wikipedia estimates the number of internationally operating NGOs at 40,000. Many of these, including Greenpeace, are radical environmental lobbying organizations. While they do not have government power, they are strongly influential to our elected representatives. For example, Greenpeace has prepared a specific 61-page Treaty Proposal for the Copenhagen Meeting. It is entitled, "A Copenhagen Climate Treaty - Version 1. It can be downloaded from the Greenpeace Website at http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/press/reports/ngo-copenhagen-treaty.

As I read through Greenpeace's "A Copenhagen Climate Treaty", it appears to be confined essentially to carbon dioxide emissions and does not include aspects of world government as implied by Lord Monckton. However, it is in my judgment a clear attempt to fleece the American public. The NGO Treaty calls for 160 billion US$ per year for four years ($640 billion total). Funds would come from industrialized countries (mostly the US).

We know from various bits of information that Pres. Obama has strong communist leanings. He also seems to have some belief in world government, which is rather surprising unless he has aspiration to be World Emperor. A Copenhagen Treaty as proposed by Greenpeace would contribute greatly to the construction details of world government, even though that is not specifically mentioned. Lord Monckton mentions world government as part of the Copenhagen Treaty. It may be there somewhere, but I could not find it directly.

The semi-good news is that all international treaties signed by the U.S. Administration must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. No matter what Pres. Obama says or does at Copenhagen will be binding, unless Senate confirmation is obtained. This is contrary to what Lord Monckton said in his YouTube presentation. We can hope that the Senate will use good judgment in not confirming the Treaty. However, the Senate does not have a recent record of using good judgment. It is also loaded with liberal Democrats, who appear to endorse world government. This means there is a possibility of Senate endorsement. We can help to forestall this endorsement, by asking our US Senators from Texas to withhold endorsement, but this is likely to have little effect. Our Senators already seem to be convinced that we should not have a Copenhagen Treaty. The problem is that they are in the Senate minority. We need to encourage them to work across party lines with appeal to the common sense of some reasonable Democrats, who I am sure are present in the Senate.