Global Warming

    One of our Political Associates sent the following message to Fox and Friends at Fox News:
    "Congratulations to Maria Molina and Fox and Friends for briefly describing the composition of our atmosphere one day last week.  Unfortunately, it  missed a golden opportunity to stress the fact that carbon dioxide is ONLY about 0.04% of our atmosphere, that the Earth would be uninhabitable because of extremes in temperature without 'greenhouse gasses', which also include oxygen, nitrogen and water vapor, that carbon dioxide is necessary for plant growth and that carbon dioxide has no known magical properties to differentiate it from oxygen and nitrogen as a contributing factor to any global warming that might occur." 

    "Any future programs you air regarding this subject might ask the viewing audience for ANY data establishing  a cause and effect relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global warming.  I do not know of any such data and doubt that it exists".

The Carbon Dioxide/Climate Change Hoax

    A man and wife, who are part of our Political Advisor Group and also have a scientific background, have written an interesting short article. It relates to public perception of global warming and a flat Earth. This is what they have to say:
    "Hundreds of years ago most people, with no factual information to the contrary, believed the Earth was flat.  They were uninformed, superstitious and gullible.  Today, most people, even with some factual evidence to the contrary (composition of the atmosphere and the thermal conductivities of the gasses comprising it), believe that man-generated carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming and climate change.  Since there are NO cause and effect studies to link the two, it is evident that most people are still uninformed, superstitious and gullible.  What is worse, is that this hoax is being  abetted by ignorant and/or unscrupulous politicians to further their political aims."
    I am also posting this on my blog at: http://arthur-climatecontrol.blogspot.com .

Global Warming and Chicken Little

    The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report on climate change on 9/28. The major news media immediately picked up segments of the report and elaborated them to ridiculous claims. CBS claimed that temperatures would rise more than 200°. ABC predicted many more super storms, like Sandy. NBC predicted the same.
    The nature of man is to fear the unknown. Many children are afraid of the dark, because they can't see what's out there. Rational persons in Massachusetts believed in witches, because of suspected magical powers.
    However, the classic story about fear mongering is the story of Chicken Little. It Is a fable with a couple of morals.
    There are many references to Chicken Little on the Internet, but Wikipedia says Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. Versions of the story go back more than 25 centuries.
      A chick believes the sky is falling when an acorn falls on its head. The chick decides to tell the King and on its journey meets other animals (mostly other fowl) which join it in the quest. After this point, there are many endings. In the most familiar, a fox invites them to its lair and there eats them all. Alternatively, the last one, usually Cocky Lockey, survives long enough to warn the chick, who escapes. In others all are rescued and finally speak to the King. In most retellings, the animals have rhyming names, commonly Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Hen-Len, Cocky Locky, Ducky Lucky or Ducky Daddles, Drakey Lakey, Goosey Loosey or Goosey Poosey, Gander Lander, Turkey Lurkey and Foxy Loxy or Foxy Woxy.
        The moral to be drawn changes, depending on the version. Where there is a 'happy ending', the moral is not to be a 'Chicken' but to have courage. In other versions where the birds are eaten by the fox, the fable is interpreted as a warning not to believe everything you are told.

Deception on Global Warming

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    I address this to you, so that you will have an appreciation of global warming issues as the Obama Administration requests funding through taxation to combat global warming, which most of us already know is a hoax..
    News Busters reports that the broadcast networks have completely ignored the “lull” in warming in recent years, in all 92 stories about climate change they reported in 2013. Instead, they report worries raging infernos, surging seas, and howling winds.
        Reason for this deception: The Obama Administration wants global warming, so that it can tax carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels. The broadcast networks support the Obama Administration on anything, whether it is right or wrong.

More on the Global Warming Hoax

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz:

Dear Rep. Neugebauer and Senators Cornyn and Cruz,
    I have previously explained why I send these notices to you. It's a matter of how you spend taxpayer money.    The British newspaper Telegraph has an additional article on the present status of global warming. Here are some excerpts:   
    A cold Arctic summer has led to a 60% record increase in the North Polar ice cap, leading experts to predict a period of global cooling.
    The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.
    Some scientists now claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.
    The ice cap fact contradicts computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming. Several years ago the BBC predicted that the arctic would be ice free by 2013.
    The original predictions led to billions being invested [squandered] on green measures to combat the effects of climate change.

    The key point is that the large increase in the size of the North polar ice cap has occurred in spite of the fact that carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration, from the burning of carbon fuels, has increased. This leads to the obvious conclusion that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has no significant effect on global warming compared to other natural conditions.
    Obviously, any government efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of carbon containing fuels is a wasteful squandering of taxpayer funds.   

More on Global Warming Hoax

Open Email to House Representatives and Senators:

Dear House Representatives and Senators,
    I address this to you because you will undoubtedly be involved in financing any projects involving global warming. For example, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $19 billion program to fortify New York City against any negative effects of global warming. You can be sure that Mayor Bloomberg will be coming to you for taxpayer money. You need to be kept up-to-date to avoid more squandering of taxpayer funds than you have tended to do in the past.
     James Delingpoile of the British newspaper Telegraph has a very informative article bringing us to date on the global warming hoax. Since it is a rather long article, I will only include excerpts here.
    Delingpole reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) will have a new report out on Friday, but there has been leakage of information. The IPPC has given a preannouncement that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change. and that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.
    Delingpole says that as an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory [World War II]. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.
    Computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering with predictions of runaway global warming, have been shown to be bunk. This is not surprising to a few distinguished scientists, whose voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.
    This is why the latest IPPC Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

    Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

    Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

    It will be interesting to see how Pres. Obama handles this new information, since he has made climate change one of the more important considerations of his administration.

More on Climate Change

The British newspaper Express has an article on climate change. It refers to a report from the UK Energy Research Centre, which shows the number of those who resolutely do not believe in climate change has more than quadrupled since 2005. The report comes as climate change scientists working on a landmark UN report on climate change are struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.
The question of whether climate change is real or unreal is deceptive in the context of the real question, which is whether the activities of mankind are increasing global temperatures.
As a straight factual question of whether the climate of the earth is variable, the answer is obviously "yes". We have good historical records to show that Earth's temperature has varied from year to year, sometimes to the extent that it has affected life conditions of living species.
Another misunderstanding involves the term "greenhouse gases". Those who propose that greenhouse gases generated by mankind are responsible for climate change ignore the fact that at a more basic level, greenhouse gases are good. Without an atmosphere composed of greenhouse gases, such as nitrogen and oxygen, daytime/nighttime variations in temperature would be so great as to not allow Earth habitation.
The climate change fear mongers claim that increases in carbon dioxide concentration through mankind's burning of fossil fuels radically increases earth temperature, because it is a greenhouse gas. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it is not significantly different from nitrogen and oxygen, it now exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of 0.05%. At such a low concentration, it has an insignificant effect on climate compared to the major constituents of the atmosphere. If the concentration were even doubled to 0.1%, its effect would still be insignificant.
Advocates of the theory that carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere cause an increase in global temperatures must be called to task. To merely note an increase in global temperatures or an increase in violent storms, while simultaneously noting an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is irrelevant. Using that sort of argument, one could say that global temperature increase is caused by an increase in the number of home runs accomplished each year in professional baseball. An obviously ridiculous assertion!
The only way that atmospheric carbon dioxide could affect Earth temperature is for it to have extremely unusual heat insulation properties, such that during nighttime, heat cannot escape from the Earth to interstellar space. If this is actually the case, I would like to be shown laboratory data demonstrating such unusual property of carbon dioxide.