Texas Sen. Cornyn on Greenhouse Gasses

Dear Sen. Cornyn.

Thank you for your greenhouse gas form letter.

You are against controlling carbon dioxide emissions by fossil fuel burning as proposed by the EPA, because you see the great cost and damage to our economy in doing so. This is a very pragmatic and attractive approach, but it still leaves you wide open to continued EPA pressure.

The EPA starts with the assumption that greenhouse gases are bad and if you follow that assumption, you are liable for easy manipulation by the EPA.

The fact is that greenhouse gases are not in general destructive to our environment. Earth's atmospheric gases are absolutely essential for maintaining life on earth. Without greenhouse gases, the differences between nighttime and daytime temperatures would be so great as to obviate Earth's ability to maintain organic life.

We are this favorable presence of greenhouse effect primarily because of two major gases in the atmosphere; nitrogen and oxygen. Other natural gases, such as argon at 1% and carbon dioxide at less than 0.05% have only minor effects on the greenhouse ability of the system. There is nothing special about carbon dioxide. It is neither poisonous nor especially heat reflective in its greenhouse ability. Because of its low concentration, it can be considered an almost insignificant part of the greenhouse gas complex. However, it does have another special property. Even at low atmospheric concentration, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is necessary for the continued growth and health of plant life, on which we depend as food. That is, even slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide contribute are to higher crop yields and general forestry.

Once again, contrary to the position of the EPA, carbon dioxide is not a dangerous greenhouse gas. It is a greenhouse gas, but there's nothing dangerous about it. It is part of the greenhouse gas system as originally required for the production and continuance of life on this planet.

---

From: Senator Cornyn [mailto:SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 9:23 AM
To: asucsy@suddenlink.net
Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office

Dear Dr. Sucsy: Thank you for your recent letter regarding global climate change and greenhouse gases. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this matter. I welcome an open debate on how to be a good steward of our environment; however, I cannot support regulatory actions that create a massive new government bureaucracy, raise energy prices, increase taxes, and send American jobs overseas. I oppose actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to treat greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). This misrepresents the legislative intent of the CAA in favor of expanding the EPA's regulatory authority. Recently, the EPA has sought to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Furthermore, the EPA seeks to limit new plants by imposing new standards that are not commercially demonstrated today. As a result, a considerable amount of electricity generation is at risk and could be taken offline, increasing electricity prices and harming grid reliability. When regulatory agencies discount real-world data or fail to follow due process, they needlessly destroy jobs and threaten whole industries, increasing economic uncertainty and hampering job creation. I strongly believe that innovation and technological advances in traditional and alternative sources of energy will address our nation's environmental challenges more effectively than more government regulation. Furthermore, I believe that any effort to control greenhouse gas emissions should not place the United States at a global economic disadvantage or penalize American families and workers. Given the scope and magnitude of the EPA’s regulations and their impact on the economy, it is essential that the regulatory process remain transparent and accountable to all Americans, not solely in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. In an effort to restore transparency and accountability to the federal regulatory process, I cosponsored the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS Act; S. 226). This legislation would require major agency actions—defined as those having an economic impact of $100 million or more—to obtain prior congressional approval. S. 226 was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs for further consideration, and it is my hope that this important legislation will be brought to the Senate floor for debate during the 114th Congress. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent Texas in the United States Senate, and I will continue to support policies that ensure economic viability while protecting public health. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN United States Senator 517 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Tel: (202) 224-2934 Fax: (202) 228-2856 http://www.cornyn.senate.gov Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter. PLEASE NOTE: Due to the nature of electronic communication, if you did not receive this e-mail directly from my office, I cannot guarantee that the text has not been altered. If you have questions about the validity of this message, or would like to respond to this message, please use the web form available at my website, http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact.

.  

Basis of CO2 Emissions and Climate Change

According to the Washington Times, Pres. Obama has proposed to the United Nations that he will cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26% over 10 years. By the term "greenhouse gases", Obama means carbon dioxide, which is a gaseous emission from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, etc.. He is basing this on the long-term opinion held by his administration and propagandized as the anticipated cause for climate change, with associated disasters, including flooding of coastal cities.
There is no true scientific basis for making any claim that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels has any significant effect on climate change. It is purely an imaginary connection engendered to develop fear as a motivation to use the hypothetical connection for other reasons.
The question is how does the Obama administration come up with such a nonscientific based position. The quick answer is because they want it to be so, not because it is. The alternate question then is how can relatively intelligent people come up with a belief and program, which has no basis of scientific fact. To answer this, I thought we might take a look at the background of education for Brian Deese, who is a senior advisor to Pres. Obama.
Brian has a Bachelors Degree in Political Science from Middlebury College. For his degree, he had to take 10 courses in Political Science, and at least one course in eight other fields, one of which is Science. We do not know whether he had chosen Science, but suspect that he did not. If he had, the Science Department describes its courses as, "A study of inductive and deductive processes of science. Emphasis is on the methods used to gather, interpret, and evaluate data critically, and the placement of this information into a larger context. Fundamental principles of each discipline are discussed in a manner that illustrates the evolving relationship of science, technology, and society." Notice that there seems to be no teaching of scientific fact.
Brian followed this with a law degree from Yale University and then one might say did some super graduate work as an employee of the Center for Global Development, a think tank whose stated mission is "to reduce global poverty and inequality by encouraging policy change in the United States and other rich countries through rigorous research and active engagement with the policy community. In short, there is no indication that Brian Deese has ever studied gases, including CO2 and properties related to it, such as specific heat. His concentration has been to redistribute global wealth, consistent with that of Obama, and a distorted version of CO2 emissions and associated climate change is only a means to that end.

Converse Opinions on Carbon Dioxide/Climate Change

In celebrating the International Day of Happiness, the United Nations sponsored an event with hip hop singer and producer Pharrell Williams to talk about climate change. During the event, Pharrell said, "Protecting our planet is fundamental to the pursuit of human happiness," Pharrell said, telling the enthusiastic crowd, "We only have one home and there's climate change... If you don't (take) care of your home, you don't have a life, and we have to transition from climate change to climate action."
Conversely, Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace and presently co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, said among other things, "By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse."
He also said, "I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
And, "There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative". Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays, and the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy."
Finally, "At [the present] 400 parts per million [carbon dioxide], all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising." "The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide."

Columnist Walter Williams on Global Warming

Thirty-Five years ago the United Nations brought to the public attention the idea that man's burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, fuel oil, and gasoline increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, which results in global warming, with disastrous consequences of glacier melt, sealevel rise, and flooding of coastal cities, among other things.
The President George W Bush Administration was in office at the time and tended to ignore the disaster claims. In fact, it was said that the his Administration attempted to suppress the disaster claims of global warming.
When Pres. Obama took office, his Administration latched onto the global warming theory with fervor, having spent to date many billions of dollars on regulations suppressing carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and promoting alternative sources of energy.
In spite of the Obama Administration's policy and support of a multitude of pseudo-scientists indirectly on government payrolls, there is strong skepticism in the land about the existence of global warming/climate change, as related to man's activity.
Walter Williams is a well-respected national columnist. Yesterday, he issued a paper claiming that the United Nations/Obama Administration/pseudoscientists position on global warming is a hoax intended to support a redistribution of wealth on a global basis. Here's what he had to say:

"“But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact,” said President Barack Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address. Saying the debate is settled is nonsense, but the president is right about climate change.

GlobalChange.gov gives the definition of climate change: “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer. Climate change encompasses both increases and decreases in temperature, as well as shifts in precipitation, changing risk of certain types of severe weather events, and changes to other features of the climate system.” That definition covers all weather phenomena throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.

You say, “Williams, that’s not what the warmers are talking about. It’s the high CO2 levels caused by mankind’s industrial activities that are causing the climate change!” There’s a problem with that reasoning. Today CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2, at least according to the warmers, the Earth should have been boiling.

Then there are warmer predictions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, warmers, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, made all manner of doomsday predictions about global warming and the increased frequency of hurricanes. According to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, “no Category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States for a record nine years, and Earth’s temperature has not budged for 18 years.”

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.”

Ehrlich forecasted 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

Climate change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate change official, said her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.”

In 2010, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science is settled. Very often we find the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height of academic dishonesty."

WALTER E. WILLIAMS is a professor of economics at George Mason University. His column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

Radiative Forcing

On Page 28 of the March 2, 2015 issue of Chemical Engineering News, SR has a Concentrate entitled "CO2'S Climatic Impact Measured". SR says "Spectroscopic measurements of Earth's atmosphere have provided the first directly observed evidence that rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are altering Earth's surface energy balance, a parameter known as radiative forcing." It is also said that Earth's total radiative forcing in the atmosphere is currently about 2.3 W per square meter of which CO2's contribution stands at about 1.8 W per square meter.
I thought we might take a closer look at what SR and his references mean and how they come to their conclusion.
Since the writing includes terms with which we may not be familiar, let's take a look at a few of these. Most of us know what "CO2" and "climate" are, so let us start with "spectroscopic measurements ".
Spectroscopy is a study of the light emitted by an object. That light could be generated internally, as for example from a lightbulb or flashlight. It could also be light that is reflected from an outside source, as for example, we can see a person in daylight, because he is lighted up by sunlight. In both cases, what we see is kind of an average of many components of light. There are also some components of flight that we can't see, such as ultraviolet.
However, there is a device which contains a glass prism, such as old Isaac Newton used in his studies of light. It separates the components of light into different bands some of which we can see. It is called a spectroscope. For example, if we have a flame and put some table salt in the flame, we can see through the spectroscope various bands which are characteristic of sodium.
With the spectroscope, we can look at the sun or the stars, and from the presence of the bands we see in the spectroscope and known characteristic bands of various elements, we can determine what the sun and stars are made of. In addition, depending upon the intensity of the bands, we can get some good idea about the concentration of each of those elements.
Just for completeness, we can also shine a light on various samples of matter and look at the reflected light through the spectroscope to see the various bands characteristic of that particular material. As added versatility, the light.
we shine on the sample can be a wavelength of visible light, such as yellow, or invisible ultraviolet light, infrared, or x-rays. In each case, we get back a different picture from the sample. From those pictures, we can usually identify various component parts of the sample and concentrations thereof. For example a sample of stainless steel will show we have iron, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, etc., with an indication of just how much of each component is there.
The bottom line is that spectroscopy will tell us a lot about composition of matter, with respect to what the components are and the concentrations of each. If we use it on the Earth's atmosphere, we can determine the carbon dioxide is present and it's concentration in the atmosphere. I don't see how it could tell us how "rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are altering Earth's surface energy balance", but perhaps I'm missing something. If I am not, many people are taking a long stretch.
Let's go on to "radiative forcing".
Massachusetts Institute of Technology publishes a newsletter. In 2010, David Chandler said, "The concept of radiative forcing is fairly straightforward. Energy is constantly flowing into the atmosphere in the form of sunlight that always shines on half of the Earth’s surface. Some of this sunlight (about 30 percent) is reflected back to space and the rest is absorbed by the planet. And like any warm object sitting in cold surroundings — and space is a very cold place — some energy is always radiating back out into space as invisible infrared light. Subtract the energy flowing out from the energy flowing in, and if the number is anything other than zero, there has to be some warming or cooling going on."
He also gives the following example: "It’s as if you have a kettle full of water, which is at room temperature. That means everything is at equilibrium, and nothing will change except as small random variations. But light a fire under that kettle, and suddenly there will be more energy flowing into that water than radiating out, and the water is going to start getting hotter. In short, radiative forcing is a direct measure of the amount that the Earth’s energy budget is out of balance."
Notice that Chandler in his example of the kettle did not use the obvious second part, which was when you take the heat source away, the water in the kettle cools. That would've been consistent with his first statement which was that radiative forcing is the difference between energy going in and energy going out.
Notice also that he had nothing to say about why some substances, such as carbon dioxide are claimed to have strong radiative forcing characteristics even at low concentration as compared to many other gasses, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
But going back to the C and E News article, it is all of a sudden claiming that the Earth's total atmospheric radiative forcing is 2.3 W per square meter with CO2 accounting for about 1.8 W per square meter of the total.
That seems to me to be an awful big leap of faith, when in the first place I can't put any energy terms on the reported spectroscopic measurement, nor can I see how carbon dioxide is suddenly a strong radiative forcing component of the atmosphere, whereas other atmospheric major gases are not.

Climate Change Research Funding

What's the latest flap on climate change? The Washington Times says, "Democrats [are] on [a] ‘witch hunt’ for doomsday-denying climate scientists". 
Explanation: Seven professors from various universities have challenged the theory that climate change is driving extreme weather events such as hurricanes and blizzards. Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona is attempting to castigate them and their position, because at least some of them may have accepted research funding from private fossil fuel industries.
So what? The whole group of global warming/climate change advocates have been accepting research funding from various federal agency sources for many years. It seems that Rep. Grijalva wants to allow funding for researchers only who are favorable to global warming/climate change theory and deny funding to dissenters.
While this is an interesting sideshow, it really has little bearing on science. The whole basis of global warming/climate change theory is the concept of "radiative forcing". This concept was presented in the original papers of the United Nations. The most interesting aspect of the radiative forcing concept is that there is no explanation of what radiative forcing is. Scientists advocating action on global warming/climate change have been accepting government grants for years, but I have been unable to find anywhere an explanation or justification for the concept of radiative forcing. The best I can find is that carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are said to be agents of radiative forcing.
There has been big money spent by the government in so-called university research on global warming/climate change, and now another seven university professors are presumably obtaining funding from the private fossil fuel industry. While this should have been done some time ago, we need to research the fundamental science involved in global warming/climate change. Associated radiative forcing should be investigated and explained in terms available to an average intelligent person. This is not unreasonable. For example, our patent system is based on the fact that a reasonably intelligent person should be able to duplicate an invention previously issued as a new composition of matter or process patent by the US patent office.
In simpler terms, I would like somebody to tell me what radiative forcing is, with respect to what the atoms and molecules are doing and why there are differences among these atoms and molecules. Without that basic information, which would make sense to me, I can't get excited about any supposed disastrous effects from global warming/climate change as said to be caused by man.

Carbonated Beverages and Atmospheric CO2

    One of my previous essays discussed the National Research Council's (NRC) position on global warming or climate change. The NRC wants to fix something that's not broken. There Is no established relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and climate change.
    An ancillary essay dressed the question of whether carbonated beverages make a significant contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. While we are previously decided that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is unrelated to global warming or climate change, I addressed the question as though a relationship existed the answer was that even over 10 years, the release of carbon dioxide from carbonated beverages had no significant contribution to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    We now have a third opinion from one of our political associates. I will make no comment and only repeat what he he has had to say as follows:
   

   "Since plants process CO2 as their primary metabolic gas, much as animal kingdom beings process O2, we will see a significant change in plant growth if CO2 levels truly do increase.  This has been demonstrated time and again in basic botanical experiments where a plant is grown in a high CO2 environment.  The plants 'sequester' the Carbon and release O2 as a byproduct.   This is a basic demonstrable scientific fact. " 

      "Where the rub comes is that the robber barons want to tax everyone for this natural process.  They argue that they are going to plant the plants that will sequester all this extra carbon gas.  This is just a ploy to redistribute wealth.  The claim is to 2nd and mostly 3rd world economies.  The reality is that the people at the top will skim, and then the despots of the UN will skim and then the dictates of the 3rd world will sop up what gravy trickles to them and very very few 'plantings' will be accomplished."  

     "However the CO2 rate of increase will have been "stabilized". Their claim will be due to the glorious actions of these skim balls, the truth will be due to the naturally occurring processes already in play in our environment." 

     "Our dear leaders are claiming that the risk to the planet is greater than the risk of any war.  Famine and floods will happen, which they always have, and there will be much suffering, which there has always been, because of yours and my use of atmosphere.  We are getting played like fools on this, and if successful the carbon tax will change lifestyles on the earth forever.  Suffering will increase, progress will decrease, what a bunch of fools we are if we let this come to pass."

Carbonated Beverages and Atmospheric CO2

I recently issued an essay concerning the position of the National Research Council (NRC) on global warming, or if it's rather cold, climate change.
The NRC says there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that such excessive amount causes global warming or climate change. There are a couple of difficulties with that position. First of all, there is no clear connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and climate. We know that the total presence of atmospheric gases tends to equalize temperatures between night and day on the Earth surface, so that Earth is livable. However, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is only 0.05%, which does not make a significant contribution to the total.
The other question is "how much is too much"? The NRC ignores that, but touches lightly on it in mentioning photosynthesis.
The new factor is that after issuing my essay, one of our political constituents asked whether carbonated beverages have an effect.
First of all, I claim that any concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below say 10% will have no effect on climate. Although not normally considered climate, the difference between night and day Earth surface temperatures is a very significant portion of climate and is controlled mainly by the major gasses of the atmosphere, which are nitrogen and oxygen.
But for discussion, let's say I am wrong and carbon dioxide has unusual properties in affecting climate. Starting from that basis, let's take a look at the contribution of carbonated beverages.
Annual world production of carbonated beverages is 188 billion liters. A 12-ounce (355 millititers) can of Coca-Cola contains 2.2 g of CO2. That 6.2 g of CO2 per liter of carbonated drink or 1166 billion grams of CO2 in the annual world production. That is also 2.6 x 10^6 US tons (i.e. 1.17 X 10^12 / 1 X 10^6 X 2.2) of CO2.
The mass of the Earth's atmosphere is 5.6 x 10^17 US tons. At 0.05% CO2, the atmospheric mass of CO2 is 2.8  X 10^14 US tons.
Let's assume that all CO2 content of the annual world production is lost to the atmosphere through opening the containers and belching. Therefore, the annual addition of CO2 to the atmosphere from carbonated beverages is 2.6 x10^6 / 2.8 x 10^14 x 100 = 0.000001%. After 10 years, the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere would have been 0.00001%.
For those who want to have skipped the calculations, and assume that I have made no mathematical errors, the answer to the political associate's question of whether carbon dioxide in carbonated beverages makes a significant difference to the CO2 content of the atmosphere, the answer is "no".

National Research Council on Climate Change

In its February 16, 2015 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Steven Gibb reports that the National Research Council (NRC) is underscoring the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide before exploring ways to modify Earth's climate. The NRC is said to have released two reports on February 10 and has three suggestions. Before going into the detail of those suggestions, let us take a look at who the NRC is.
The NRC was organized on June 19, 1916 by the National Academy of Sciences (a private organization), at the request of President Woodrow Wilson. The purpose of the NRC was in part to foster and encourage ..."the increased use of scientific research in the development of American industries...the employment of scientific methods in strengthening the national defense ...and such other applications of science as will promote the national security and welfare." Since its inception, the NRC has done much good work, but through the years has become more politicized. It has retained its private status, with the likelihood that is now a hotbed of leftist scientists, as leftist environmentalists have infiltrated the organization.
In 2001, the NRC Committee on the Science of Climate Change published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. The report explicitly endorsed the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's findings as representing the view of the scientific community. The report has a quotation, "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rise are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Basically, the NRC has held the view that for at least the past 14 years, climate change is man-induced. However, it had weasel worded its position by the use of the terms "likely", "mostly", "cannot rule out", and "are expected to continue".
On July 1, 2005  Ralph J. Cicerone became the 21st president of the National Academy of Sciences and chairman of the NRC. This was four years after the NRC had stated its position with respect to man-induced climate change, and I strongly suspect that Cicerone would not have been appointed Chairman of the NRC, if he had in any way been opposed to the National Academy's position on global warming.
Three months after Dr. Cicerone was appointed NRC Chairman, Chemical and Engineering News published an interview with him. One comment Dr. Cicerone made at the interview was, "For example, what is the most effective way to limit carbon dioxide emissions? Would it be a carbon tax?" With that statement, he obviously believes, or at least finds it politically expedient to say, that man-generated carbon dioxide through burning of fossil fuels results in global warming. Notice that he had not bothered to put in the weasel words of the NRC position four years earlier.
With that questionable background on the reliability of NRC positions, let us take a look at its recommendations.
The first is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By the term "greenhouse gases", NRC primarily means carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and possibly methane from accidental release in production of natural gas and from the intestinal activities of food animals and human beings. We have already embarked on that program of reducing CO2 emissions, even though there has not been any clearly established relationship between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and global warming, or the recently modified term "climate change". In the Obama administration's promotion of solar and wind energy, and the EPA restrictions on use of coal as powerplant fuel, we have already spent many billions of dollars.
The second proposal is to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through carbon dioxide removal (CDR). This would involve efforts to increase photosynthesis, and ocean iron fertilization, both of which are absorption techniques. The third CDR technique would be to process all atmospheric air through a device to remove the carbon dioxide. Let's always keep in mind that all of these proposals are made on the basis that "maybe" carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.
The third proposal is really far out. It involves so-called Solar Radiation Management (SRM). The theory is that if you restructure the atmosphere to reduce the amount of radiation received at the Earth's surface, global warming will automatically be reduced. It's a theory and probably a good one but basically impractical. The specific proposal would be to add sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere as a radiation insulator, but there's a catch; acid rain.
Acid rain was first recognized about 30 years ago. Power plants were burning coal contaminated with sulfur, which also burned to produce sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide gas was emitted to the atmosphere where it then further reacted with atmospheric oxygen to produce sulfur trioxide. The sulfur trioxide gas in the atmosphere was water-soluble, picked up by falling rain and deposited to the Earth's surface as dilute sulfuric acid. The acidification of lakes, ponds, and other inland waterways negatively affected aquatic life. The solution was to extract the sulfur from the coal before burning and thereby eliminate sulfur dioxide in the stack gases. Perhaps 30 years post experience use it is too long a term for the NRC to remember. It is obviously illogical to use intentional addition of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphereit now to try to control global warming, which would also mean a return to acid rain.
What does all this mean? To me, it means that the whole process of irrationality begins when someone has a thought, which in more scientific consideration is generally called a theory. People latch onto the theory, accepting it as fact, rather than attempting to develop whether it has any validity. They then go on to expend tremendous amounts of money on suppositions. Many of these people are scientists, who should know better based upon their training, but for some reason or other seem to take an emotional approach to the extent of irrationality. In addition, these misguided scientists form into groups which then obtain a kind of political power and lead us down the road to destruction.
What is our defense? The answer is simple but requires work. First, be skeptical of everything you hear that does not seem to make sense. Trust no one based upon so-called credentials of education and power within organizations. I don't expect the average person to become an expert on global warming. There are too many of these so-called experts doing damage to our economy, but the average person needs to use common sense. Always ask the question of whether it is real or just somebody's thought or theory. Remember that these screwballs are looking for money. Deprive them of same and let's get on with the real threats of Islamic terrorism, uncontrolled national debt, nuclear weapons proliferation, and similar obvious problems, where we can have solutions. God or nature has set up this world with automatic climate controls far beyond the capabilities of man. Let's not be so egotistical as to think that we can play God. Our job is to cooperate with nature as best we can. Use an umbrella when it rains or stay indoors.

Military Adapting to Climate Change

Last October 20, C&E News had a short article on the military and climate change. This was prior to the resignation of the Secretary Hagel from the Department of Defense.
The basis of the article was the issuance of a Pentagon report entitled, "2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap".. The general conclusion was that climate change could complicate military challenges ranging from infectious disease to terrorism. More specifically, "expected" climate change could involve rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea level and more extreme weather events.
My sincere compliments to Pentagon officials for recognizing that climate change can have a significant impact on military operations. My only criticism is the implication that Pentagon officials have been slow in recognizing the effects of climate change on their operations. We've always had climate change and will continue to do so. The mere fact that it occurs over a longer period of time, as opposed to weather, is not an excuse for ignoring it up to now.
Secretary of defense Chuck Hagel was not satisfied to leave climate change in the natural category to which it belonged. He had to go one step further and relate it to man-made activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels with generation of CO2 and the myth that CO2 affects climate change. It was the Obama playbook, and it is surprising that with this position, Pres. Obama found other causes to fire him.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) on Global Warming

Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Democrat from Vermont. Typical of most Democrats, he believes in fairytales, partial truths as proof of the whole, and routinely enters the element of fear into his suppositions. His latest ill-developed position is on global warming.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader replacing Harry Reid, has said that he will bring open discussion of the Keystone pipeline to the Senate floor. This offers to Sen. Sanders an opportunity for what he considers a "beautiful" amendment. He wants to poll each senator on whether they believe in global warming.
Sen. Sanders will ask this question as an indirect way to kill the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline will allow greater access to oil, which is used only as a source of energy by burning. In the burning process, carbon dioxide is generated, on which the Obama administration has been pouring billions of dollars into a propaganda campaign for many years to convince the public that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerous to the extent that it contributes to global warming. While there is actually no scientific basis to support this position, it is also true that many pseudo-scientists have signed on to the propaganda. The chances are also that Senators have been tainted by this misinformation and could be believers in carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. If there enough falling into this category, Sen. Sanders expects that they will automatically vote against the Keystone pipeline.
Sen. Sanders has already tried to lead the group or Senators into misinformation by the wording of his statement as recorded by the Washington Times. He plans, "To ask each senator if he or she agrees with ‘the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community’ that climate change is a factually proven problem resulting in ‘devastating problems in the United States and around the world."
There are a couple of things wrong with his apparent opinion and his statement. While climate change is a fact as shown by long-term historical data, it is a natural occurrence, and there is no scientific evidence showing that climate change is significantly connected with human operations. Sen. Sanders is trying to give the impression that the only climate change is man induced. Obviously wrong!
Considering climate change as a natural occurrence, then Sen. Sanders' question to the senatorial group will be misleading. What he should be asking is a twofold question. Is there such a thing as climate change? The answer is "yes". Is man's activity significant in contributing to climate change? The answer is "no". The "no" answer comes from the fact that man's burning of fossil fuel only generates an insignificant amount of heat, compared to global heating by the sun. The supposition that common dioxide emission in burning fossil fuels increases the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is true, but any implication that it causes global warming is false. There is no acceptable theory as to why tiny amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should affect global heat, and there is no statistical data, which would show that.

Climate Action

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

More on Man-made Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 Year Global Warming

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

Jerry Brown's False Predictions

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

Global Warming Disbelief

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

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

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

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

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

BBC Censoring Climate Dissenters

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

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

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

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

Nine-Year Climate Cooling in the US

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

More Ice in Antarctica

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

Lack of Specificity in the Globall Warming Controversy

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