The March 28, 2011 issue of C&E News has a book review by Jovana J. Grbic. The book is entitled, "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg.
This is my commentary on both the review and the book. Since it is a review of the review, it is third hand and may be susceptible to some errors from lack of facts and interpretation of the original work.
Basically, Mr. Lomborg says that there is great exaggeration in attitudes concerning the effects of the global warming discussion. Some persons strongly deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. Others strongly believe in its existence and predict dire consequences. Mr. Lomborg takes the position that anthropogenic global warming does exist but is neither inconsequential nor dire.. He does not specify how much anthropogenic global warming exists. He estimates that if the $$20 trillion, which is proposed to fight anthropogenic global warming, is actually spent, the global warming reduction would be only 0.1°F. I don't know where or how Mr. Lomborg gets his figures. Perhaps they are in his book.
I generally agree with Mr. Lomborg that there is anthropogenic global warming. Even though he acknowledges global warming at a level lower than those who have radical claims and predict dire consequences, he appears to believe that it is somewhat higher than I do. I claim it is insignificant.
I base my conclusion on laboratory results which show that the passage of infrared radiation through carbon dioxide is only slightly more impeded than passage through either nitrogen or oxygen. I further point out that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, even if doubled from its present value, would be so low as to impede heat radiation from the Earth to only a negligible extent. This procedure seems to have been ignored, even though it is standard practice in determining R values of building insulation materials.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Another Questionable Condemnation of Carbon Dioxide
The January 10 Issue of C&E News had an article entitled, "Monitoring a Troubling Trend". The article is on ocean acidification and assumes acidification has been occurring and is still in progress.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.
I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.
With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?
All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.
We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.
I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.
My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.
The Federal Ocean Acidification Research & Monitoring (FOARAM) Act was signed into law in March 2009. The law created a program to monitor and research ocean acidification and inspire him greater investigation by federal agencies of the phenomenon's effect on ecosystems and strategies to conserve Marine life.
I was not even aware that this law was being considered, but now that we have the law I am seriously concerned about its justification. It appears to me that this is another boondoggle operation on which to spend large sums of money. The National Science Foundation, which is a major supporter of such work, announced last fall $24 million in special grants for ocean acidification research. The National Research Council report says that the key element is a broad and integrated monitoring program which would measure ocean temperature, salinity, oxygen, certain critical nutrients, dissolved inorganic carbon, pC02, total alkalinity and pH.
With that background, I am wondering how this program ever got started. Not knowing its exact origin, I can only speculate. As a scientist and a human being, I am endowed with a certain sense of curiosity. There is always something to pique one's curiosity. The C&E News article says that the present pH of the ocean is 8.1 and that it has risen from 8.2. This leads to a couple of obvious questions. How was it determined that the pH is now 8.1? Did someone have a new pH meter and ran around taking the pHs of anything he saw? When and where were these measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 made? Did someone run down to the beach and grab a sea water sample or is this a collection of pH data from samples taken at various locations in the world, including the Mississippi Delta, the Indian Ocean, the Coast of Labrador etc.,? We can also what the sensitivity of the pH determination is. Is it 1/100 of a pH unit? If so, why do we only report it to 1/10?
All this adds up to my suspicion that no one was ever significantly concerned about the pH of the ocean, until someone decided to relate it to carbon dioxide, which was part of the ideology of the present Obama Administration. In other words, the Administration may have questioned whether carbon carbon dioxide could be condemned for some atrocities other than just global warming. How about ocean acidification? Power plants burning coal have previously been shown to contribute significant quantities of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere, which is later later oxidized to sulfur trioxide and forms sulfuric acid when mixed with rain. Acidification of lakes and ponds and possibly rivers has been noticed from this affect. Surface waters routinely drain into the ocean. Would this be enough to affect pH of ocean waters? Since that thought does not do anything to condemn carbon dioxide, perhaps the Administration has ignored it.
We can also consider motivations for actual investigative work in this area. Again, it is a matter of federal funds being used for research and particularly in private grants, wherein one is obligated to come up with an answer which fits the ideology of the search background.
I'm also critical of C&E News with the title "Monitoring A Troubling Trend". Is the "Troubling Trend" a matter of the pH apparently dropping from 8.2 to 8.1? It does trouble me that C&E News could leap to this conclusion, especially without considering the obvious questions concerning pH determination accuracy and water samples from various locations.
My bottom line is a suggestion that Congress take another look at that law, in these times of budget tightening, and consider whether it should be eliminated.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Merchants of Doubt
The January 17 Issue of C&EN has a book review by Gavin Schmidt. His review is entitled, "Sowing Seeds of Doubt". The book he reviewed is entitled, "Merchants of Doubt".
In his review, Gavin Schmidt says, "Scientists such as ourselves are not immune to self-delusion, and even the brightest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking for rigorous logic when the science points to conclusions that uncomfortably conflict with our world view". This caught my attention and possible relevancy to the topic of "Climate Change", which previously was called "Global Warming". I read Gavin's whole article, but I did not read the original "Merchants Of Doubt".
I came away somewhat confused. Who are the merchants of doubt? Gavin refers to an example in the original work whereby a handful of scientists obscured the truth on health issues of tobacco smoke. Are these supposed to be the "Merchants of Doubt"? By my logic, they are not. They were supporting a myth that there were no health issues related to tobacco smoking.
Contrarily, I am a "Merchant of Doubt". Although I never gave it much thought during the period I was smoking, I never was a merchant of doubt on the health issue. Anyone else who opposed smoking as a possible health problem, was in my judgment a merchant of doubt at that time. In other words, anyone who goes against a generally accepted viewpoint is more logically consider a merchant of doubt.
I also read recently in the Retort a very-well written article by Amanda Strickland on the life of Lavoisier. Lavoisier was an old-time French nobleman, who engaged in scientific work among other things. During his era, there was a generally accepted theory that when things burned, they gave off a material called phlogiston. Apparently, Lavoisier did not initially contradict the phlogiston theory, but in his work he found that when he burned phosphorus, the weight actually increased. How could that be? The phlogiston theory said that after burning, the weight should be decreased. While it took many years, the phlogiston idea was finally debunked as a product of imagination.
We now return to climate change. Several scientists developed some time ago the theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels such as coal, was causing global warming. While this situation was somewhat similar to the phlogiston theory, it is much more complex. During the phlogiston era, the idea just sat there. There was no financial support from government or private individuals to perpetuate it. Contrarily, the CO2/climate change gained power because of its economic importance. The federal government saw an immediate opportunity to gain new revenue by taxing the CO2 bad guy. To build on this and ultimately convince the American public of the need for CO2 control and the related aspect of tax revenue, various departments of the federal government issued grants to scientists to perform additional supporting "scientific" work.
As Gavin Schmidt has said, "even the highest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking". In this case, the motivation to support global warming was to gain federal money for laboratory development, salaries, etc.. The way that persons fall prey to wishful thinking is through motivations, such as money. This is not to say that all scientists have been deceptive when they work in this area. It only means that they have been duped into scientific prostitution by federal funds.
With all of the subsequent "scientific" work performed by these climatologists, I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the notion that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, which is radically changing our environment. I continue to be open to receiving such data, which would legitimize the claim but have received nothing to date. Scanning various reports from climatologists have made one thing clear. None ever face the direct problem, but skirt the edges with a load of gobbledygook, presumably intended to confuse news reporters, congressional officials, and the public at large.
Returning more directly to "Sowing Seeds of Doubt" and "Merchant of Doubt", we need such merchants in our society. Without them, we will all fall off the cliff like lemmings into the sea. There is already talk of ecological engineering, of how we can change climate through variously induced procedures involving distributing certain chemicals in the atmosphere. These are ridiculous notions which would cost untold billions of dollars in waste, on top of what is already being wasted on ridiculous "scientific research" supported by taxpayer dollars.
At one time, the general consensus of the public was that the earth was flat. This view was held for a long time, but eventually was displaced by scientific evidence of an independent nature. How would it have been if the US government had decided to spend billions of dollars maintaining the myth and then subsequently adding other billions of dollars in futile efforts to make the earth round? There were merchants of doubt at that time, among which was Galileo. We still need merchants of doubt.
In his review, Gavin Schmidt says, "Scientists such as ourselves are not immune to self-delusion, and even the brightest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking for rigorous logic when the science points to conclusions that uncomfortably conflict with our world view". This caught my attention and possible relevancy to the topic of "Climate Change", which previously was called "Global Warming". I read Gavin's whole article, but I did not read the original "Merchants Of Doubt".
I came away somewhat confused. Who are the merchants of doubt? Gavin refers to an example in the original work whereby a handful of scientists obscured the truth on health issues of tobacco smoke. Are these supposed to be the "Merchants of Doubt"? By my logic, they are not. They were supporting a myth that there were no health issues related to tobacco smoking.
Contrarily, I am a "Merchant of Doubt". Although I never gave it much thought during the period I was smoking, I never was a merchant of doubt on the health issue. Anyone else who opposed smoking as a possible health problem, was in my judgment a merchant of doubt at that time. In other words, anyone who goes against a generally accepted viewpoint is more logically consider a merchant of doubt.
I also read recently in the Retort a very-well written article by Amanda Strickland on the life of Lavoisier. Lavoisier was an old-time French nobleman, who engaged in scientific work among other things. During his era, there was a generally accepted theory that when things burned, they gave off a material called phlogiston. Apparently, Lavoisier did not initially contradict the phlogiston theory, but in his work he found that when he burned phosphorus, the weight actually increased. How could that be? The phlogiston theory said that after burning, the weight should be decreased. While it took many years, the phlogiston idea was finally debunked as a product of imagination.
We now return to climate change. Several scientists developed some time ago the theory that carbon dioxide emissions, from burning fossil fuels such as coal, was causing global warming. While this situation was somewhat similar to the phlogiston theory, it is much more complex. During the phlogiston era, the idea just sat there. There was no financial support from government or private individuals to perpetuate it. Contrarily, the CO2/climate change gained power because of its economic importance. The federal government saw an immediate opportunity to gain new revenue by taxing the CO2 bad guy. To build on this and ultimately convince the American public of the need for CO2 control and the related aspect of tax revenue, various departments of the federal government issued grants to scientists to perform additional supporting "scientific" work.
As Gavin Schmidt has said, "even the highest among us can fall prey to the substitution of wishful thinking". In this case, the motivation to support global warming was to gain federal money for laboratory development, salaries, etc.. The way that persons fall prey to wishful thinking is through motivations, such as money. This is not to say that all scientists have been deceptive when they work in this area. It only means that they have been duped into scientific prostitution by federal funds.
With all of the subsequent "scientific" work performed by these climatologists, I have not seen one shred of evidence to support the notion that carbon dioxide is an atmospheric pollutant, which is radically changing our environment. I continue to be open to receiving such data, which would legitimize the claim but have received nothing to date. Scanning various reports from climatologists have made one thing clear. None ever face the direct problem, but skirt the edges with a load of gobbledygook, presumably intended to confuse news reporters, congressional officials, and the public at large.
Returning more directly to "Sowing Seeds of Doubt" and "Merchant of Doubt", we need such merchants in our society. Without them, we will all fall off the cliff like lemmings into the sea. There is already talk of ecological engineering, of how we can change climate through variously induced procedures involving distributing certain chemicals in the atmosphere. These are ridiculous notions which would cost untold billions of dollars in waste, on top of what is already being wasted on ridiculous "scientific research" supported by taxpayer dollars.
At one time, the general consensus of the public was that the earth was flat. This view was held for a long time, but eventually was displaced by scientific evidence of an independent nature. How would it have been if the US government had decided to spend billions of dollars maintaining the myth and then subsequently adding other billions of dollars in futile efforts to make the earth round? There were merchants of doubt at that time, among which was Galileo. We still need merchants of doubt.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Global Warming is Here!
The Washington Post
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
(keep reading)
Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
(keep reading)
Oops! Never mind. This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post - 88 years ago!
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Valuable Carbon Dioxide
EIN News says, "Carbon Dioxide, the Bane of Environmentalists, Is in Demand in the Oil Industry. The Obama administration views carbon dioxide as a pollutant that warms the earth, and it imposed new regulations at the beginning of the year to begin to control CO2 emissions. But to Texas oilmen, carbon dioxide is a useful - and scarce - commodity that is vital to extracting hard-to-reach oil reserves. (nytimes.com)".
Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.
No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.
I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.
Water is more of a pollutant than carbon dioxide. We can see the damage that water does through flooding and drowning deaths. However, it can be useful.
No one has yet shown that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. There is no obvious damage to the environment, such as with water, and about everything related to it and climate change is pure fantasy.
I am pleased that oilmen have found a good use for large quantities of carbon dioxide in oil production. It takes some effort and cost to extract it as a component from natural gas, and there may be some reasonable justification for capture from coal-burning power plants. Both of these might satisfy the fantasies of fear-mongering carbon dioxide climate-change enthusiasts.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Climate Change Historian or Environmental Activist?
Sarah Everts is a C&EN reporter, apparently stationed in Berlin. In the September 20, 2010 Issue of the C&EN, she has an article entitled "Naomi Oreskes. The subtitle says, "A Science Historian takes on climate-change skeptics and fights off their attacks".
Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.
Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.
Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.
However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.
In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.
Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.
Without even reading the article, it is apparent from the above that Naomi Oreskes is not really a Science Historian. Rather, she is a climate change activist. This is easily deduced from the fact that historians, in their writings, are supposed to report situations and opinions of the principles and general public at the time in history that the opinions and actions were generated. It is my understanding of historians that there is no room for personal opinion of the historian. If the historian is giving a personal opinion, then it is no longer a historical account, but rather an editorial. Wikipedia calls her a Science Historian, which is now somewhat doubtful.
Since Sarah Everts is a reporter and has a public obligation to report facts and situations, this C&EN article appears to be confusing, but there is an explanation. Sarah Everts is following the C&EN byline of promoting global warming, now switched to climate change. As I've indicated in my previous writings, this is apparently a program of Rudy Baum, C&EN Editor-In-Chief. Perhaps Sarah Everts and other C&EN editors have to come up with articles favorable to promoting the aspect of global warming or climate change to the C&EN readers, in order to establish its legitimacy by repetition, without scientific basis. In other words, this appears to be a promotional program similar to a well-known athlete endorsing Nike shoes. We can excuse the Nike shoe promotion, because it is obvious that it is promotional, and as one judge has said, "a certain amount of puffing is allowable in advertising". Contrarily, the use of puffing in a scientific/business publication is morally reprehensible. Sarah Everts may be forcing herself to do this in order to hold her job. She may be truly convinced about the ridiculousness of climate change control, or she may have rationalized it to a position, which she can accept.
Notice that in the above two paragraphs I have implied that I am one of the climate-change skeptics and am attacking. True. I am attacking, because I have yet to see any scientific justification that I and others should believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change of any significance. It is obvious that in man's burning of fossil fuels, such as oil natural gas, oil, and coal, heat is generated, but that heat is highly likely to be insignificant compared to variations in heat delivered from the Sun. No one seems to have bothered to make the mathematical calculations, in spite of the fact that the US Government Department grants to so-called scientists in universities have been many and substantial.
However, that is not the main issue. Sarah Everts goes on to devote most of the full-page to the rantings and ravings of Naomi Oreskes trying to make analogies with tobacco related diseases and push, pushing the terrible disasters which will be caused by anthropogenic climate change. Oreskes finally gets down to cases in the next-to-last paragraph when she mentions that a Superior Court judge has allowed the EPA "to control carbon dioxide as a pollutant". I urge the reader here to consider the fact that in the last two years I have continually asked for scientific information, which would justify designating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Specifically, I would like to see someone review the existing or new data concerning carbon dioxide's power of insulation or resistance to the passage of heat, as compared to other much more prevalent gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen and oxygen.
Oreskes says that "scientists have to be on the forefront of explaining their work". I'll agree with that. Presumably Oreskes is a scientist, since she is a Ph.D. professor at the University of California. Where is she explaining her work? Opinions are not work explanations.
In checking the Internet, I find Oreskes had grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these organizations are agencies of the US government. We know that the Obama Administration has been pressing for the acceptance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant leading to global climate change, and this is likely part of the process by which he can obtain more tax money to redistribute on a worldwide basis to pursue his socialistic agenda. People who receive grants from the US government for climate research know full-well that they must come up with positive answers to support government's philosophy or they will lose subsequent funding.
Under the above conditions, the legitimacy of the writings of both Sarah Everts and Naomi Oreskes are in serious doubt. I would like to see Oreskes take some of the grant money and do some serious, honest research on carbon dioxide as an atmospheric pollutant leading to global warming. And I want to see some honest-to-goodness physical chemistry involved in that research, rather than some pie-in-the-sky collection of data on global warming.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli Must Investigate Possible Fraud In Global Warming Grants
There has been considerable controversy concerning investigations of possible fraud by academic individuals receiving government grants involving the subject of global warming.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Michael E. Mann is a "climate scientist". When he was an assistant professor at the University of Virginia's Department of Environmental Science, he received a grant, with two other University faculty members. A grant is a sum of money, which an organization or individual gives to another organization or individual to financially support a specific study. The grant recipients are usually universities or specific individuals within universities. The grant donors are usually segments of government, dispersing taxpayer funds. The fund-granting government departments are not required to obtain specific taxpayer approval, but they have the obligation to see that the funds are legitimately spent.
The Attorney General for Virginia is Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II. He suspects that Michael Mann has fraudulently used grant funds from the state of Virginia. As a protector of the property rights of Virginia citizens, he feels obligated to investigate whether fraud has been committed in this case.
Cuccinelli has requested from the University of Virginia a number of Mann's documents. Specifically, Cuccinelli has requested background documents involving papers published by Mann in 1998 and 1999, and which were included in the grant application to the state of Virginia. Cuccinelli suspects that Mann knew that the 1998 and 1999 papers "contained false information, unsubstantiated claims, and/or were otherwise misleading." Cuccinelli has asked for the backup documents for those 1998 and 1999 papers.
The University of Virginia has refused to give Cuccinelli the documents on the basis that the investigation is an invasion of personal privacy. The University's position has substantial support from the academic community and various "freedom organizations".
Traditional US financial ethics requires that any individual or organization supplying money to another individual or organization has the right to examine the uses to which those funds have been put. For example, a salesman operates on an expense account. He is required to periodically submit a statement which itemizes the specific uses of the advanced funds. Another example, government grants to a corporation a cost contract to manufacture a certain product. Government then has the right and obligation to request a report on those costs and to engage in conversations on any of them.
On the basis of the above examples, Cuccinelli has every right and obligation to the people of Virginia to investigate whether the funds expended by Mann were legitimate to the intent of the grant. If in the investigation, evidence is collected which may be the basis of prosecution as determined by a grand jury, Cuccinelli has the right and obligation to proceed with prosecution.
The claim of Cuccinelli's infraction of the First Amendment rights is spurious and misleading. When Mann accepted taxpayer funds to support his research, he should've known that he was thereby obligated to use those funds without deception and to make available to the state of Virginia all supporting documents.
When Contrarily, consider that Cuccinelli has no right or obligation to protect taxpayer funds. This would obviously be an opportunity for any donor receiver to perform any kind of political maneuvering, fraud, or rather deception to his heart's desire. In addition, the donor receiver would be motivated to fraud on the basis that by so doing, he would develop an advantage for continued funding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
