E-mail to Congress:
EIN News says, "White House Is Prepared to Set First National Limits on Greenhouse Gases. The Obama administration on Tuesday formally proposed new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, a move that signals the first federal limits on greenhouse-gas pollution. (washingtonpost.com) ".
This is bad news, from several points of view. The White House may be using a tricky maneuver to control generation of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. At least this is what the Washington Post communication is implying.
I remind you at this point that I have previously requested anyone to supply me scientific information that carbon dioxide or any other gas has a significant effect on heat absorption, retention and liberation in Earth's atmosphere to affect surface temperatures. No one has been forthcoming with such information, which allows me to continue my claim that global warming is a myth. Any attempts to develop controls on myths is obviously ridiculous.
The second difficulty, and perhaps more significant, is that Pres. Obama continues to bypass Congress by the issuance of Administrative Directives. This is characteristic of any dictatorial or oligarchic government. Do you plan to continue accepting this domination of power, until there is no possibility for your branch of government to control the direction in which the country moves?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Climate Bill
This message was sent to Representative Neugebauer:
EIN News says, "Climate Bill Politics Are Heating Up: Supporters of Obama's Clean-Energy Plan Say the Issue Is Not Just Jobs. After months of promoting President Obama's climate plan as a vehicle to create millions of clean-energy jobs, supporters of the legislation are increasingly pushing another strategy -- its benefits for national security. (latimes.com)".
Just now, it escapes me as to how a Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide involves national security. Perhaps it will come to me later, or it may be so abstract is to be in the area of a logical fantasy.
Meanwhile, we can remain with the previous conclusion that Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide is only another gimmick by government to increase tax revenues at the expense of the American public, who will bear the brunt by paying higher electricity and heating bills.
EIN News says, "Climate Bill Politics Are Heating Up: Supporters of Obama's Clean-Energy Plan Say the Issue Is Not Just Jobs. After months of promoting President Obama's climate plan as a vehicle to create millions of clean-energy jobs, supporters of the legislation are increasingly pushing another strategy -- its benefits for national security. (latimes.com)".
Just now, it escapes me as to how a Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide involves national security. Perhaps it will come to me later, or it may be so abstract is to be in the area of a logical fantasy.
Meanwhile, we can remain with the previous conclusion that Cap and Trade on carbon dioxide is only another gimmick by government to increase tax revenues at the expense of the American public, who will bear the brunt by paying higher electricity and heating bills.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Arctic Passage for Shipping
Letter to Congress:
EIN News says, "Arctic Shortcut Beckons Shippers As Ice Thaws. For hundreds of years, mariners have dreamed of an Arctic shortcut that would allow them to speed trade between Asia and the West. Two German ships are poised to complete that transit for the first time, aided by the retreat of Arctic ice that scientists have linked to global warming. (nytimes.com)".
We don't know the cause of the retreat of Arctic ice, which would allow this commercially significant development. It is obviously local warming in the Arctic and may be related to global warming, but the latter is obviously a supposition. It would also be a long stretch to assume that the cause is man-made, especially since records show various periods of global warming on earth, which could not have had any man-made influence.
Whatever the cause, it is an opportunity to take advantage of. Congratulations to the two German ships. Where are the Americans? Has Congress frustrated US entrepreneurs to the extent that they no longer have incentive for development?
EIN News says, "Arctic Shortcut Beckons Shippers As Ice Thaws. For hundreds of years, mariners have dreamed of an Arctic shortcut that would allow them to speed trade between Asia and the West. Two German ships are poised to complete that transit for the first time, aided by the retreat of Arctic ice that scientists have linked to global warming. (nytimes.com)".
We don't know the cause of the retreat of Arctic ice, which would allow this commercially significant development. It is obviously local warming in the Arctic and may be related to global warming, but the latter is obviously a supposition. It would also be a long stretch to assume that the cause is man-made, especially since records show various periods of global warming on earth, which could not have had any man-made influence.
Whatever the cause, it is an opportunity to take advantage of. Congratulations to the two German ships. Where are the Americans? Has Congress frustrated US entrepreneurs to the extent that they no longer have incentive for development?
Lawsuits on Climate Control
Letter to Congress:
EIN News says, "U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Car Dealers' Lawsuit Targets Stricter Vehicle Emissions Rules in California. A federal lawsuit by two industry groups aims to halt the U.S. government and the state of California from moving ahead with new greenhouse gas emissions rules for cars and trucks -- an action that, if successful, could scuttle a key piece of the Obama administration's plans to set stricter nationwide standards for vehicles. (latimes.com)".
Congratulations to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Car Dealers!
There are 2 aspects of vehicle emissions. One borders on climate control,which should have no place in our regulatory system. The other involves pollutants, which have been demonstrated to have negative effects on the health of human beings. We start with looking at the composition of vehicle emissions.
Carbon monoxide is a human poison. It is also an energy loss, because it is a product of the incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel. It is already well-controlled by the use of catalytic converters on vehicles. EPA regulation on permissible concentration in the emission gas would seem appropriate.
Nitrogen oxides are similarly obnoxious. They are also controlled by use of catalytic converters, and EPA regulation seems appropriate.
Particulate matter (soot) is possibly carcinogenic, but there is no clear evidence. However, it does dirty up the area and EPA control on permissible concentration in the emissions could be appropriate.
Lastly, we come to carbon dioxide. It is not a human poison. It can cause suffocation at high concentrations, as can nitrogen, argon, helium, and other biologically inert gases. There is no basis for concentration control in automotive emissions. Any attempts to do so, are a subtle attempt for climate control, based on the myth of greenhouse gases and the associated opportunities of grants, Cap and Trade, etc.
I hope the courts will recognize technical differences, consider the probable attempt at climate control through EPA and the Administration, and disallow the Administration and its agency to overreach in this area.
EIN News says, "U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Car Dealers' Lawsuit Targets Stricter Vehicle Emissions Rules in California. A federal lawsuit by two industry groups aims to halt the U.S. government and the state of California from moving ahead with new greenhouse gas emissions rules for cars and trucks -- an action that, if successful, could scuttle a key piece of the Obama administration's plans to set stricter nationwide standards for vehicles. (latimes.com)".
Congratulations to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Car Dealers!
There are 2 aspects of vehicle emissions. One borders on climate control,which should have no place in our regulatory system. The other involves pollutants, which have been demonstrated to have negative effects on the health of human beings. We start with looking at the composition of vehicle emissions.
Carbon monoxide is a human poison. It is also an energy loss, because it is a product of the incomplete combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel. It is already well-controlled by the use of catalytic converters on vehicles. EPA regulation on permissible concentration in the emission gas would seem appropriate.
Nitrogen oxides are similarly obnoxious. They are also controlled by use of catalytic converters, and EPA regulation seems appropriate.
Particulate matter (soot) is possibly carcinogenic, but there is no clear evidence. However, it does dirty up the area and EPA control on permissible concentration in the emissions could be appropriate.
Lastly, we come to carbon dioxide. It is not a human poison. It can cause suffocation at high concentrations, as can nitrogen, argon, helium, and other biologically inert gases. There is no basis for concentration control in automotive emissions. Any attempts to do so, are a subtle attempt for climate control, based on the myth of greenhouse gases and the associated opportunities of grants, Cap and Trade, etc.
I hope the courts will recognize technical differences, consider the probable attempt at climate control through EPA and the Administration, and disallow the Administration and its agency to overreach in this area.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Trouble in the Tundra
Letter to Editor of Chemical and Engineering News:
I was attracted to your article "Trouble in the Tundra" (8/17/09 Edition; page 39) primarily because of its length. I thought that since it was four pages, there must be something good there.
I read about half of it. I like adventure stories. It isn't an adventure story. I thought maybe it contributes something to the advancement of science. It isn't that. I thought maybe we can find the writers "agenda" from the last paragraph, which is usually the case in most semi-scientific writing. It's there in the last sentence, "Our best mitigation is slowing down overall warming ". Ha! It's CLIMATE CONTROL.
Now I started looking for some of the detail which has led to this author's conclusion. I saw the word "Thermokarst". It's a new word, but is that any reason to beat it to death.
More specifically on detail, it says, "permafrost contains layers upon layers of carbon that has been locked away for tens of thousands of years. This is an important point, because it appears to be factual, rather than an opinion.
When the author talks about "carbon", he likely refers to what we normally call "humus". He likely does not refer to solid carbon, such as anthracite coal or diamond.
Humus is formed from decaying vegetation by the action of soil bacteria. Vegetation is only produced at temperatures above freezing. Similarly, soil bacteria are only active at temperatures above freezing. This means that each layer of humus formed, and which constitutes the permafrost, was generated at a time when temperatures were above freezing.
This means that there were many periods in the tens of thousands of years that temperatures were above freezing. Does this imply that during each of those periods, there was a lot of man-made global warming from automobiles, electricity generation, etc.? That would be a ridiculous assumption. The more likely fact is that global warming has occurred many times in the past, without any involvement by man-made activities.
It would be ridiculous assume that we can control global warming in the Arctic. Let it proceed naturally, as it has done in the past. Why not let nature lay down another "layer of carbon"? There were probably Thermokarsts thousands of years ago. We just weren't around to see them.
I was attracted to your article "Trouble in the Tundra" (8/17/09 Edition; page 39) primarily because of its length. I thought that since it was four pages, there must be something good there.
I read about half of it. I like adventure stories. It isn't an adventure story. I thought maybe it contributes something to the advancement of science. It isn't that. I thought maybe we can find the writers "agenda" from the last paragraph, which is usually the case in most semi-scientific writing. It's there in the last sentence, "Our best mitigation is slowing down overall warming ". Ha! It's CLIMATE CONTROL.
Now I started looking for some of the detail which has led to this author's conclusion. I saw the word "Thermokarst". It's a new word, but is that any reason to beat it to death.
More specifically on detail, it says, "permafrost contains layers upon layers of carbon that has been locked away for tens of thousands of years. This is an important point, because it appears to be factual, rather than an opinion.
When the author talks about "carbon", he likely refers to what we normally call "humus". He likely does not refer to solid carbon, such as anthracite coal or diamond.
Humus is formed from decaying vegetation by the action of soil bacteria. Vegetation is only produced at temperatures above freezing. Similarly, soil bacteria are only active at temperatures above freezing. This means that each layer of humus formed, and which constitutes the permafrost, was generated at a time when temperatures were above freezing.
This means that there were many periods in the tens of thousands of years that temperatures were above freezing. Does this imply that during each of those periods, there was a lot of man-made global warming from automobiles, electricity generation, etc.? That would be a ridiculous assumption. The more likely fact is that global warming has occurred many times in the past, without any involvement by man-made activities.
It would be ridiculous assume that we can control global warming in the Arctic. Let it proceed naturally, as it has done in the past. Why not let nature lay down another "layer of carbon"? There were probably Thermokarsts thousands of years ago. We just weren't around to see them.
Beachfront Property
EIN News says, "Spain's Solar-Power Collapse Dims Subsidy Model. Spain's hopes of becoming a world leader in solar power have collapsed since the Spanish government slammed the brakes on generous subsidies. The sudden change has rippled across the global solar industry, in a warning of the problems that government-supported renewable-energy programs can encounter. (wsj.com)".
They are two aspects to consider in this report; government subsidies and solar power.
Congratulations to the Spanish government, as they realize the untenable position they had previously placed themselves in with respect to generous subsidies. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and it is Government's responsibility to allocate it properly for society's benefit. Fundamental to this concept is protection against foreign military aggressors, maintenance of civil law and order and other responsibilities designated by the Constitution and its original Amendments.
Some persons believe that there is no limit to availability of funds for Government use. Tax profits or take the total assets from those who have it. Sources would be individuals and corporations. The problem is that in so doing, this would be the killing of the geese that laid the golden eggs. We have seen excessive spending on subsidies, promoted by the Administration and approved by Congress. There's no question that this will lead to disaster. I urge Congress to follow Spain's initiative and "dim the subsidy model".
There is a place for solar power. The conversion rates of solar energy per square meter to electricity have been substantially increased by technological improvements. They may continue to do so. However, this is an operation which should be geared to private enterprise; not to government subsidy. We have an energy problem in this country and will always have. Private industry has the capability of maintaining a reasonable balance between needs (desires) and supply. The difficulty has been the many restrictions placed on private industry by local, state, and federal governments. Government continues to pass restrictive legislation for private industry, with no attempt to remove restrictions. This should be a major revolution of Government.
They are two aspects to consider in this report; government subsidies and solar power.
Congratulations to the Spanish government, as they realize the untenable position they had previously placed themselves in with respect to generous subsidies. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and it is Government's responsibility to allocate it properly for society's benefit. Fundamental to this concept is protection against foreign military aggressors, maintenance of civil law and order and other responsibilities designated by the Constitution and its original Amendments.
Some persons believe that there is no limit to availability of funds for Government use. Tax profits or take the total assets from those who have it. Sources would be individuals and corporations. The problem is that in so doing, this would be the killing of the geese that laid the golden eggs. We have seen excessive spending on subsidies, promoted by the Administration and approved by Congress. There's no question that this will lead to disaster. I urge Congress to follow Spain's initiative and "dim the subsidy model".
There is a place for solar power. The conversion rates of solar energy per square meter to electricity have been substantially increased by technological improvements. They may continue to do so. However, this is an operation which should be geared to private enterprise; not to government subsidy. We have an energy problem in this country and will always have. Private industry has the capability of maintaining a reasonable balance between needs (desires) and supply. The difficulty has been the many restrictions placed on private industry by local, state, and federal governments. Government continues to pass restrictive legislation for private industry, with no attempt to remove restrictions. This should be a major revolution of Government.
Solar Power Subsidies
EIN News says, "Spain's Solar-Power Collapse Dims Subsidy Model. Spain's hopes of becoming a world leader in solar power have collapsed since the Spanish government slammed the brakes on generous subsidies. The sudden change has rippled across the global solar industry, in a warning of the problems that government-supported renewable-energy programs can encounter. (wsj.com)".
They are two aspects to consider in this report; government subsidies and solar power.
Congratulations to the Spanish government, as they realize the untenable position they had previously placed themselves in with respect to generous subsidies. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and it is Government's responsibility to allocate it properly for society's benefit. Fundamental to this concept is protection against foreign military aggressors, maintenance of civil law and order and other responsibilities designated by the Constitution and its original Amendments.
Some persons believe that there is no limit to availability of funds for Government use. Tax profits or take the total assets from those who have it. Sources would be individuals and corporations. The problem is that in so doing, this would be the killing of the geese that laid the golden eggs. We have seen excessive spending on subsidies, promoted by the Administration and approved by Congress. There's no question that this will lead to disaster. I urge Congress to follow Spain's initiative and "dim the subsidy model".
There is a place for solar power. The conversion rates of solar energy per square meter to electricity have been substantially increased by technological improvements. They may continue to do so. However, this is an operation which should be geared to private enterprise; not to government subsidy. We have an energy problem in this country and will always have. Private industry has the capability of maintaining a reasonable balance between needs (desires) and supply. The difficulty has been the many restrictions placed on private industry by local, state, and federal governments. Government continues to pass restrictive legislation for private industry, with no attempt to remove restrictions. This should be a major revolution of Government.
They are two aspects to consider in this report; government subsidies and solar power.
Congratulations to the Spanish government, as they realize the untenable position they had previously placed themselves in with respect to generous subsidies. There is only a certain amount of money to go around, and it is Government's responsibility to allocate it properly for society's benefit. Fundamental to this concept is protection against foreign military aggressors, maintenance of civil law and order and other responsibilities designated by the Constitution and its original Amendments.
Some persons believe that there is no limit to availability of funds for Government use. Tax profits or take the total assets from those who have it. Sources would be individuals and corporations. The problem is that in so doing, this would be the killing of the geese that laid the golden eggs. We have seen excessive spending on subsidies, promoted by the Administration and approved by Congress. There's no question that this will lead to disaster. I urge Congress to follow Spain's initiative and "dim the subsidy model".
There is a place for solar power. The conversion rates of solar energy per square meter to electricity have been substantially increased by technological improvements. They may continue to do so. However, this is an operation which should be geared to private enterprise; not to government subsidy. We have an energy problem in this country and will always have. Private industry has the capability of maintaining a reasonable balance between needs (desires) and supply. The difficulty has been the many restrictions placed on private industry by local, state, and federal governments. Government continues to pass restrictive legislation for private industry, with no attempt to remove restrictions. This should be a major revolution of Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
