Monday, May 16, 2022

Climate Change Reailty Check:: If We Were Meant to be Solar Based, Wouldn't Man Be GREEN!! (Commentary)

Generally, it isn't smart to mix factual science with faith-based beliefs but as industrialized countries embark on a dozen or more radical solar, carbon-capturing and wind energy initiatives that are untested at best, one wonders why modern science is so determined to fiddle with a pretty good situation. Doesn't it seem likely that if mankind were meant to live off the sun's energy, he would have been made green from the beginning? Regardless of who you believe is responsible for iits beginning--a Spiritual Being, alien colonists from another planet or Darwin's Theory of Evolution, what right does a small group of extremists have to dictate changes to a planet that is both unique and functional.

Perhaps a bit of perspective is in order to remind environmental purists how homo-sapiens already fare in the natural World.  Will they be embarrassed by their attitude or will they feel even more entitled to living conditions that prove how weak a species man really is?

1.  Man is the only species that does not live in the home Nature created for him. 

As glorious as cultural architecture is, it is in no way similar to the forests, caves or water that support the rest of the World's beings.  Even the tents of nomads and shanties of refugees offer more shelter than is provided for animals on the plains or fish in the sea.  What right do we have to expect climate-controlled accommodations when other life forms go it alone? So what if the Earth is a little hotter than it was fifty years ago. All ohter species manage, why can't man?

2. Man is the only species that needs an energy source to survive.

Certainly, our opposable thumbs and brains helped in letting our species thrive but it is fire that was the big difference in ancient man's success.  By all other accounts, man had little to keep him from  becoming extinct long ago. Have any of our climate advocates every thought that the smoke and dirt from 5,000 thousand years of fires provided something more than creature comforts.  Probably not.  While people now complain about the acrid smell, burning was nature's method of recycling resources equally across all life forms.

3.  Man is the only species that creates trash and will not allow it to decompose or degrade. 

Until recently, burning trash at night was a common and acceptable practice.  One interesting point in this regard is that paper is made of organic cellulose. If our country burned its paper instead of recycling it, approximately 60% of its weight would be release as water vapor (1 pound to 10 oz of water) Unfortunately, California and other drought hit areas choose to believe smoke is dangerous. InS real life, smoke creates clouds that carry rain and shield the land from the sun. By not burning trash, we make our environment dryer and hotter. Removing all the CO2 in the World will not make the temperature go down without clouds in the sky.

4. Man is the only species that feels he has to "work" at something other than finding food, sleeping, protecting himself against harm and tending children and family members

 As the stock market prepares for a recession, people around the World are concerned about a global slow down.  Do people really have to work as much and as hard as they do to provide the basics or is this a mindset forced upon us for the benefit of the elite?

5. Man is the only species that expects its food to be planted, grown, harvested, transported, prepared and delivered to him.  

Even in the most rural of communities in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America, people who live in cities expect food to come to them.  Like male lions they assume food is available for the asking without regard for what it takes to provide it.  A global economy takes food for granted and urban mindsets recommend plant based diets without knowing anything about nutrrition..  Moreover, as the air becomes cleaner, it loses its ability to be the first primary source of nutrients for the poor and disadvantaged.  The nitrogen and sulfur that is now restricted per EPA guidelines can no longer support bodily functions for any animal.  Not surprising, the pharmaceutical companies have made billions by providing those same compounds as drugs and supplements, fertilizers and such.

It's All About Balance

If you haven't figured it out by now, the balance between life forms that produce food (aka, energy) and those which use it is the reason this worked well for thousands of yearsl. Human beings are clearly users in this system. The species refusal to burn organic fuels (trees, paper, oil, coal, blubber, peat etc.) and release the chemical bonds of elements needed for life is the cause of climate change.  

By trying to be a producer of energy, we abandoned our job as part of nature and nature has had to resort to all kinds of catastrophic weather events to tear down what man wants to build.   Without fire, the atmosphere lacks the compounds that keeps all life happy and healthy.  By naively proclaiming all smoke harmful, environmental advocates handicapped nature's system of providing health to all creatures. 

If we want to end climate change, it will require us to abandon clean energy and use moderation to give Nature what it needs to make clouds and bring rain and shade. Otherwise, it will be one HOT, HOT summer.



Thursday, May 12, 2022

Climate Change 2022: Let's Review What Has Happened and Where We Now Stand (A FACS Teacher Explains)

   Original Text Posted May 12, 2022

Two weeks ago, there were signs that World leaders had learned the importance of restraint concerning climate change initiatives.  Now as Bill Gates, former Secretary John Kerry (now US Climate Change Envoy) and other hard line climate scientists attempt to whip the World into a climate-focused frenzy ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) in October, the dialogue is regrettably similar.  That leaves only one thing to do. As any good teacher does from time to time, it's time to review what we have learned and what we have not yet mastered.

Unlike other subjects which students forget as soon as they pass the test, Family and Consumer Science is about learning for a lifetime.  After all, life is one LONG test, is it not?

What Happened? 

1. In 2021, President Joe Biden proposed a HUGE spending package which would have implemented several infrastructure and social programs related to climate change. While the larger package failed in December, Biden has been busy putting some of his environmental programs into place by drawing from other departments.  While money was already budgeted to fund such military actions as those in Ukraine, Congress chose to use that event to pass a smaller spending package that not only funded $13 billion for Ukraine by also opened the door to additional climate change projects. In late May, Biden will restart 1970s era environmental guidelines for federally funded infrastructure projects. Those projects may now be required to adhere to unproven and, in most cases, impossible to measure carbon tracking methods. Clearly designed to look good on paper for the United Nations and our European allies these tracking methods do not appear to be in use by the Federal government for any of its own programs. Clearly expecting the American people to "do as I say, not as I do" these initiatives have the potential to add further fuel to the inflation fire.  Based on statements by Biden, himself, Kerry and Gates, the current concern is NOT the health or welfare of the global population but the status of its economy. Biden has repeatedly voiced expectations for Americans to pay the price for aid given to allies which are far more well-off than we are.   Mr. President, you are not JFK and for 60 years, the American people have stepped up to support those in need only to be expected to give more. 

2.  In early April, 2022, the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres went off the rails in a statement claiming that World leaders were disregarding the eminent danger to the planet.  Again, the report he cited gives a conclusion but does not back up its statements with logical, verifiable fact. As a member of the U.N. Security Council, the US has an apparent obligation to go along with the report even if it is faulty and causes is own people to be harmed in the process.

3. Following the U.N.'s emotional stand approximately 1000 scientists of unknown background protested for climate change solutions.  In lock step with the narrow-focused carbon gas theory mindsets, these protesters resorted to emotional pleas instead of fact.  At the heart of the protest, one young person expressed the opinion that scientists deserve to be heeded on face value alone and not provide physical proof of their findings.  

4.  In March/April, several media outlets and government agencies sent out reports of catastrophic changes at the poles and along coast lines.  The reports were so erroneous that they were easily debunked by simple scientific explanation.  It appears that those working in the colder regions of the planet have difficulty recognizing what is and is not a freezing temperature on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales.  Rest assured that at all times throughout the forty years of climate change concern, the polar ice caps have never been in danger of being above freezing.  In similar fashion, the  long history of measuring sea level by how far the tide comes in, was at the heart of this scientific folly. Scientists' use of computers for modeling could not compute the ever changing forces of gravity, hydraulics, erosion and planet rotation. What was reported as oceans rising was little more than the natural action of erosion on the beaches which varies greatly from place to place and day to day. 

5. Recently, The Atlantic and The Guardian have posted well written articles highlighting the weaknesses in the knowledge base of our scientific community and lack of basic understanding of how the environment works (so much for the impact of STEM funding) as well as the questionable use of closed research studies to gain status and funding for programs.  Both expressed important findings regarding the unreliable nature of the conclusions drawn in the climate change fight. Mainstream media has also become more cautious in how they report scientific data choosing to look at solutions rather than focus on cause. 

Where We Stand?

For all practical purposes, the World is in the same position it was a year ago. 

Regardless of the Iffy nature of current climate change information, the countries of the G7 still hold fast to the idea of carbon-gas being to blame for the apparent warming of the Earth. Very much focused on solutions that can be marketed, these countries ignore the climate studies that disagree with their assumptions. 

India, which has experienced extreme weather for some time, has developed studies which are contradictory to the findings of  the U.N. report.  While every one agrees that climate change exists, what causes or defines climate change is still up for debate. Like the author of Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromise the Plane and Public Health, India tends to side with other causes for the clear skies which now allow the sun to bake the country.  

Isn't it interesting that the countries which now have mild weather seem the most determined to remove CO2 gases from the atmosphere while others which have long endured periods of drought see clear skies and little rain as a far more concerning situation.

Unfortunately as long as industrialized nations are looking for a way to make money off of climate change, there will be no real solution for any of planet Earth's citizens.

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Covid-19: The Science Behind Chicken Soup’s Effectiveness Against Illness

** As the Summer COVID surge begins, we hope this reminds sufferers that vaccines only work when partnered with good nutrition.  Other options which are just as good are chicken salad sandwiches with a tall glass of lemonade, Black Bean salads with whole wheat crackers and even fresh (not imported) strawberries, almonds, sharp white chedder and a crusty roll with sweet cream butter. Food is more than just gas for your body, its a prescription for long life and health. Just remember the protein.

It was always going to happen. Like gum on the bottom of your favorite pair of shoes, COVID was going to come back to remind us that healthcare has its limitations and that the best way to be COVID free is to think prevention not cure.  

Is it possible that there has always been a natural, easy to take, immune supporting regimen that is inexpensive and resistant to supply chain issues?  As old wives tales go, it should be no surprise that chicken soup is as scientifically sound a preventative as masks and social distancing. Besides, it tastes a WHOLE lot better!

A Summer Wave of COVID

During a promotional tour for her new book, Dr. Deborah Birx, former White House Coronavirus Task Force coordinator, predicted a summer wave of COVID cases as the virus, yet again, mutates and skirts around efforts to control it.  Unlike her colleague, Dr. Anthony Fauci who tends to make impassioned pleas and dooms-day warnings, Birx's statements are well in line with long standing immunology standards which anticipate flare-ups during periods of low humidity. (Common Cold, John Hopkins)

The take away from that statement should not be fear of the future but knowledge that this is not a NEW normal but the continuation of a pattern that existed long before the pandemic.  

We, also, need to remember that the use of antibiotics and strong drugs is still a very young science with natural limitations. The hard pill to swallow here is acknowledging that a prescription pad cannot replace food as the foundation for our health.  Strange that we wouldl abandon a proven method of illness prevention so quickly as healthcare expanded.

Why is Preventing Illness so Hard?

For the sake of time and space, let''s just say resourcefulness is its own worst enemy. Over the last 100 or so years, our desire for new ways to handle ordinary jobs has complicated everything from food production and transportation to healthcare and charitable efforts.  Without consideration for how Nature operates, those intent on protecting people form illness instead created a perfect environment for illnesses to grow and prosper.  Food is the last remaining natural method of prevention and even that has become less reliable.

How can Chicken Soup be Scientifically Relevant?

This analysis is based on the study of Organic Chemistry not meteorology or environmental science. Not all science disciplines support the current position of climate advocates and worry that their push for action could further compromise all life forms.

For some reason, environmental advocates focus on how Nature looks rather than how it works. As a result, these actions have disrupted Natures' nutrient supply chain, not only for wildlife but for people as well.  Current environmental policies restrict or remove the very elements that all life needs most--Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Sulfur, Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorous, Potassium, Sodium, Chlorine, Iodine, Fluorine, Bromine, and Iron.  It's not a surprise that these elements make up a large portion of today's vitamin supplements and prescription drugs.  Truly, a complicated way of being healthy, isn't it?

Why Chicken Soup Works so Well

Here's what chicken soup does for the body and why it helps people recover from stress and illness as completely as its reputation states.

Follow our recipe or adapt your own for a home remedy that works naturally to strengthen the immune systems and rebuild damaged tissue. 

  • Water - With 70% of the body made up of water, consuming a food that already has water as a main ingredient helps digestion work better.  From a science standpoint though, it isn't the water but what's in it that makes the real difference. Ideally, you are using tap water.  If that is the case, this soup is off to a good start with trace amounts of minerals such as Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorous, Iron, and Potassium. Actually, the popular mindset of "pure" water does the planet a disservice by robbing them of nutrients which count on water to distribute them equitably. For an even better concentration of these trace minerals, boil the chicken, skin and bones included, and use the broth as the basis for your soup.  Even using one chicken leg can make a perfectly wonderful soup a quick dinner.

  • Chicken -  It's Nitrogen and Sulfur that matter here. These two elements are the chemical difference between white sugar and a quality protein that keeps the brain, heart and lungs in good condition.  Regardless of whether you do this old-school or start with a can of cooked chicken, nitrogen and sulfur will be part of the package. Strange that vaccines only work when high levels of protein are consumed as protein is a main component of anti-bodies.  Even in the wake of COVID, Nitrogen and Sulfur compounds are heavily restricted by EPA guidelines.  Most animal feeds, organic as well as standard, include chemical forms of these nutrients since they are no longer readily available in nature.

  • Yellow onions, Spices and Vegetables - Yellow is nature's way of telling people that Sulfur is present. The mineral is so important that it has its own color.   Yellow onions, mustard seed, turmeric and corn, not only add flavor and visual appeal but deliver an element that increases insulin and methionine production. Insulin helps regulate blood sugar while methionine is essential to heart and liver repair along with reproductive capabilities.  Dozens of articles on the National Institute of Health website speak to the restorative powers of sulfur but most focus on its potential as a medical treatment without concern for the environment impact.  EPA documents claim that sulfur has been virtually eliminated from the atmosphere for over forty years. As a natural barrier against bacteria and fungus, it is more than a coincidence that the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic and the 2020 COVID outbreak occurred during a time of low atmospheric sulfur that resulted from a conscious move away from fossil fuels.

  • Salt - Sodium, Chlorine and Iodine are all in that pinch of salt you add to any dish. While medical professionals warn against salt, evidence links a lack of it to everything from weak muscles, bladder control issues and dementia to respiratory illness and the rise of cancer.  Sodium regulates fluids in the body and is connected to such conditions as dry eye, a lack of saliva (tooth decay) and sinus problems. It may even play into the development of glaucoma. Chlorine is an ingredient of many OTC cold medications and was widely used for the treatment of COVID.  Iodine is linked to the production of hormones that regular metabolism and is considered by some as a natural guard against cancer. It is now one of the most prescribed medication for low thyroid function and cancer diagnoses. For thousands of years, people understood a diet without salt led to poor health and mental decline.  Why do we still belirve it is harmful to our health?

  • Crackers, Noodles, or Rice - Finally, we get around to an energy source.  Everything that is listed above will likely be retained in the body for a while.  But these fillers that make soup satisfying offer a steady supply of energy to the body.  Made up of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen (the three biggies in the body), these foods may be touted by medical professionals but offer little else than energy.  A diet heavy in grains will sustain life but eventually cause it to break down for lack of protein. Neither do these popular foods support the creation of anti-bodies EVEN if you are fully vaccinated. Another reason for what is called Long COVID is the body's natural defense mechanism breaking down its own bones and large muscles (even the heart itself) to create anti-bodies.  By receiving multiple boosters, a person could cause the body to break down lung and brain tissue to make anti-bodies that were never needed.  Too much of anything is never good in nature. 

The Question That is Before US

For some time, scientists have talked around this issue using big words and strange theories.  What they have been trying to tell us for sometime is that a choice is necesary. 

Do we want blue skies, clean air and pur water or do we want good health and predictable weather? Nature will not allow us to have both. 

All the carbon removal in the World will not restore us to good health because what is making us (and the planet) sick was removed forty years ago.  It isn't pesticides or plastic bottles or even our food that needs to change. It is our attitude to a bit of smoke, smelly gasses and rainy days that needs to become more tolerant. When we are comfortable with those three naturally occurring events then maybe, just maybe, we will solve climate change and become healthy again. 

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

The US Has Been Capturing Carbon Since 1975: Maybe That's the Problem

The year, 1970, was a momentous one for environmental actions on the national and global front. But as we herald Earth Day, its ultimate place in World History may be much different.  It may be remembered as the year when mankind almost destroyed the planet with laws and regulations based on public perception rather than comprehensive science.  

The speed with which the President and the European Community are charging forward on grand infrastructure plans should concern us. Feeling much more like the hard sell of a snake oil salesman, this seems more like old technology in a new package than a climate emergency.

Does President Biden truly not understand that the US has been capturing carbon since 1975 through the use of the catalytic converter and muffler system on nearly every gasoline and diesel powered engine?  As a member of the Senate when these provisions were put into place, Biden, certainly, should know what the contraption does. More importantly, he should also be aware that going electric will have limited effect on the environment but cost the average citizen big dollars as these new regulation go into effect. 

What is a Catalytic Converter?

As far back as the late 1940s, the oil industry recognized that they had a smoke problem. Much of commercial usage at that time was in old retrofitted coal and wood fired furnaces which were highly inefficient. Oil was cheap so waste was not an issue, but the smoke was.  Two engineers working with an America chemist, but apparently without the input of other scientific disciplines, designed the catalytic converter to remove the solid carbon from the exhaust and convert some gases to less noxious ones. 

Taxpayers, forced to pay for this expensive adaptation, have been the primary source of carbon capture since that time.  They were also put in the position of unwittingly being the  cause of an altered atmosphere that is the foundation of climate change.

 What would Einstein say?

Most people are aware of Einstein's take on repeating unproductive methods--something about the definition of insanity? Yet, here we are, doing the same thing over and over again and promising different results. Is there any wonder people think this is about greed and corruption rather than a concern for the planet?

Based on several google searches, the estimated efficiency of a catalytic converter is about 95 percent for the overall life of the component.  That means that only 5% of the carbon produced by current models escapes to the atmosphere. To go further, some form of catalytic converter has been required on all manner of operations which use oil and coal as a primary energy source. That leaves the only one major source of carbon emissions left. That source would be all creatures of the animal kingdom, including humans.

A Product of Incomplete Science

There was always going to be a time when the focus on specialization was going to come back to cause havoc. Being good at only one thing tends to make us lacking in so many others. This was one of those times. 

The catalytic converter is by EPA accounts a success. According to EPA's own figures It was so successful by the mid-80s, emissions had dropped by as much as 90%.  It has been at similar levels for 40 years even though the population and fossil fuel usage has grown. 

But with science, logic in one discipline can mean disaster in another. Without concern for anything more than reducing smoke, the result was cutting nature's essential minerals supply chain until only a trickle of these nutrients can now get through--in essence slowly starving all life on Planet Earth.

Warning: Carbon Capture Endangers Trees

In a good example of the climate advocacy right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, CO2 capture movements signature Tree Planting effort at risk. 

With the average life span of a growing tree at 80-100 years, each tree will increase its need for CO2 as it gets older.  Any CO2 capture operations placed near forests will compete with the trees and may cause slower growth or even death. What's more, large scale CO2 removal could cause the tree line in natural settings to drop drastically, exposing thousands of acres of mountain land to erosion and mudslides. 

In regard to the environment a bit of procrastination is more valuable than the regret of impulsiveness. 


Friday, April 22, 2022

Is Bill Gates the Next Edison? For the World's Sake, Let's Hope NOT!

Happe Earth Day 202

This week, the Gates Foundation released information about its latest infrastructure plan for curbing global warming. in an unusual turn, few major networks picked up the story and ran with it.  Perhaps it is a sign that climate change mania is ebbing and flowing to more constructive, workable solutions. But this shift away from the dramatic should be taken cautiously for the global environment has already been changed forever by a man much like Bill Gates. Even today, the World lives with the unintended consequences of an invention that still is considered environmentally friendly and preferable to other energy sources.

History Repeats Itself

A hundred and forty years ago, a charismatic, driven and wealthy inventor and entrepreneur named Thomas A Edison brought an idea to local and state governments for a trouble free, cheap and continuous energy source.  His ability to work within the confines of their funding and existing infrastructure soon had cities around the World plugged into electricity.

Like Gates, Edison was focused on one goal and one goal only, to replace gas, oil and coal use as much as possible.  Also like Gates, Edison had no concern for any negative effects, not necessarily because he was hard-hearted but because the science did not exist to explain how his invention would impact ever living thing on Earth.

The Starting Point for Climate Change

Doing exactly what Edison had promised, electricity became the global energy source within a matter of decades. Even rural communities were hard-wired into electric distribution centers by the 1930s.  

What Edison didn't know was that electricity forever altered the composition of the atmosphere and that clean air was anything but healthy.  Within three decades of electricity's adoption, the World was overwhelmed with sickness, poor nutrition, anxiety, crime and drought. Historians, like today's climate scientists, have drawn a wide variety of conclusions as to what might have been the cause.  Like then, the World today is dealing with every increasing levels of illness, food shortages, anxiety and drought as it pushes for stricter controls on low-emission energy. 

History is repeating itself and man is still oblivious to his role in this dysfunctional system.

How did the planet escape the long term effects of Clean Energy in the 1930s. Only with the growth of the internal combustion engine was the atmosphere restored to its dusty, smelly mixture that nurtures all forms of life.  

What is Gates' Plan? (YourTube Video of Announcement)

For all his ingenuity and effort, the solution sounds like the story line of a Home Improvement episode, the TV series whose main character, Tim the Tool Man Taylor, goes off the rails each week trying to design the most complicated and difficult way of solving a  problem. For now, it appears there is enough push back from moderate thinkers to keep him from acting on his idea.  But will that be enough to keep him from moving ahead with out concern for public heath (reactions to several medicines are possible) and property (a wave of dangerous acid rain would follow each of his treatments).

What is the Answer?

The simple way to handle this issue is to gradually reintroduce banned gases into the atmosphere. The long held belief that life forms only use one or two gases and the remaining are in some way dangerous is not supported by the studies of Geology and Organic Chemistry.  Weather may, in actuality, be the least relevant study in determining what is and is not healthy for Planet Earth. 

The human tendency to blame only what we see has kept us locked into a patter of creating the very problems (racism, gun violence, drug addition, chronic illness and poverty) that we have worked so hard to create.  Think of the atmosphere  as nature's health store and how we approach the environment and pulbic health changes drastically. Best of all, the answer is cheap, automatic, impervious to capitalism and war, and doesn't require us to give up the foods and lifestyle we love. . .as long as we do it in moderation. 

Nature will be ever so glad to be back in charge.

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Climate Change 2022: 5 Tips For Fairly Evaluating Climate Change News

As predictable as the sun coming up, environmental news peaks near April 22, commonly known as Earth Day.  In combination with pollen counts, gardening tips and cravings for fresh vegetables and farmer's markets, it is appropriate that people focus on that which sustains them in more ways than one. 

Alas, like any news item, the validity of news  (how accurate or truthful it is) becomes tainted by the desire for Twitter followers, website clicks and political leverage in an upcoming elections.  Nevertheless, spotting questionable climate information is not a difficult skill to learn. Like fresh produce, there are clear signs that the story you are about to buy may look good at first glance but is less than satisfying after a second look. 

1.  The atmosphere changes  constantly

Studies that claim to accurately test or predict the composition of the atmosphere are fundamentally flawed. There are dozens of factors that come into play (location, weather, population density, manufacturing, season, even time of day, etc) when describing what is in the air we breathe. The mindset that recommends restricting, capturing, or increasing any one gas fails to understand how the atmospher works as a collective to keep all plants and creatures healthy.

2. Trends are not the same as proof.

While people enjoy being part of an ever changing social experience science, by definition, does not change based on a single study or viewpoint.  When people substitute computer generated trending information for painstaking observation and research, they are accepting opinion or preferences as fact. It is safe to say most people want an environment that works well 100% of the time but it is dangerous to say the trend to plant trees will make it happen for all eternity.

3. The Earth has more than one climate so one solution will not work for all.

According to the SciJinks website supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), climate scientists agree there are five major climates across the planet.  Each has its own weather patterns and common elements. Any news that tells you that blizzards in Alaska and hurricanes in Florida are both because of climate change miss the mark by ignoring well documented but typical climate patterns.

4. History and social differences matter.

Because the atmosphere changes with what happens in it, good climate science takes into consideration the differences between life today and life decades ago.  One example is the knowledge that fossil fuels have provided many different types of energy over the last thousand years without the Earth imploding. Why then is converting to solar, nuclear, or wind power so very important?

5.  Just because the study is flawed, it doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

Nature operates as a system of checks and balance. Plants grow, Deer eat plants, Wolves eat deer. Wolves die out if they eat all the deer. Its a good system that self corrects itself.  The problem is that for the first time in 5000 years, mankind has had the ability to alter the atmosphere without the consequences. So far man has been able to use agriculture and healthcare to side step the sickness and illness that comes with a too clean air mass. That leaves Nature to repair the damage with volcanic eruptions and global wildfires.  How much longer that can happen is anyone's guess. 

Stay Informed. Stay active. Be aware and someday, mankind and all its stubbornness with realize it is the cause of this thing we know as climate change.


Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Nature Doesn't Have a Climate Change Problem:: The Blessings of Catastrophic Weather

You know, people? We might just have this climate change thing all wrong.  

Even though many of us have planted trees, gone plant based diet and condemned the oil companies for bringing this crisis to our door steps, Planet Earth is STILL racked by catastrophic weather, temperature extremes and general human inconvenience.

Wait, did I just say that this was about human inconvenience? No that can't be right. There has to be something wrong with Nature. It cannot be all about us, can it? 

Our Concerns are not Nature's Concerns

Unfortunately, that is the way it looks and no one wants to admit that Nature has this firmly under control. That WE, the most advanced of all species are the ones who refuse to live equitably with all other species is just not possible. WE want to take care of the environment and are willing to spend trillions of dollars to create a predictably boring and risk free climate that lets all creatures live as comfortably as we do. That we do all this at the expense of poor nations and those of modest means should be applauded, not discounted. Why doesn't Nature seem to appreciate all that WE are doing for it? 

Maybe, its just that Nature doesn't need our help. Plain and Simple.

The Natural Order is. . Well . . Natural

Come on! Think about it. Isn't the industrialized, society-based life style that is forced on third world countries and considered a mark of success a bit over the top. It almost makes the term "high maintenance" seem humble when we compare our homes to a beaver's dam or minnow's pond. And yet, we fully expect Nature to behave and not cause population centers any difficulties.  Hmmm?  How truly civilized of us. 

Could Nature have a completely automated, highly responsive system at its disposal to reset an ecosystem? Faced with clear environmental benefits after each event, we choose to downplay their presence because they clash with our image of environmental health.

As hard as it might be to swallow, Nature may be saving itself from those who are SAVING THE PLANET. when it sends extreme weather to counteract our clumsy methods of planetary protection.

Environmental Enforcers

Like all good management systems, fail safe measures kick in to keep the operation from imploding. Why, with all we know about the planet, would we assume extreme weather patterns are without a purpose? There we go, thinking we are in control again.

How might it work do you ask? Consider these possibilities

Drought - Nature's Conservationist

Triggered by low levels of emissions commonly found in animal habitats (dirt, CO2, methane, ammonia and rotten egg gas), drought assumes low animal populations and re-allocates water to where it is needed. This becomes a time of rejuvenation for plants by encouraging them to self-prune, broaden root systems and produce hardy seeds that may remain for a decade or more. Tall grasses which are not preferred by grazers die out to be replaced by clovers and fescue which are hardier. The shrinking of the dry ground opens up ways to better aerate the soil and incorporate depleted nutrients.

Wildfires - Nature's Demolition Crew

Partnered with drought, wildfires specifically target heavy vegetation that is older or overgrown. Triggered by higher oxygen levels and the presence of flammable gases linked to slowly rotting ground cover, spontaneous combustion is possible when humidity levels are low. Purposefully realigning the balance between animals and vegetation, within weeks, grasses and small trees welcome a larger variety of species back to the area.  Unlike forests which have been selectively harvested over centuries to maintain their ecological balance, unused forests have an 80-100 year lifespan and destruction by fire is a typical method of rebirth. 

Volcanoes - Nature's Aerial Fertilization Method

Composed of the same gases which are considered air pollution by climate advocates, volcanic eruptions give birth to new land masses but also spew millions of cubic meters of essential gases and dirt into the atmosphere.  Located typically near large bodies of water, this smoke and ash attract water vapor that is then transported countless miles and deposited by rain. Best used to provide nitrogen and sulfur to non-farming areas, volcanoes perform the same environmental service as burning fossil fuels did for thousands of years.

Hurricanes - Nature's Clean Up and Sanitation Crew

 In truth, any major rain event that draws moisture from a large body of water serves the same purpose--to clean up and sanitize the ground. While the aftermath of a hurricane and its flooding seem anything but clean, water than soaks into the ground is purified and drains into the Earth's underground aquifer.  As that water moves down, it takes with it trace minerals and bacteria which help boost the immune sytem of plants while releasing oxygen into the soil.  While its methods may be harsh, wildlife depend on the recycling of these trace minerals which are no longer found in a pollution free atmosphere.

Tornadoes, earthquakes, extreme temperatures and blizzards each have their own purpose but deal with smaller more regional problems.  

An OXY image
 Can We Admit WE Goofed?

Even if only part of this concept is true (but all these methods hold with chemical and biological science), can the SAVE THE PLANET mindset stop repairing nature long enough to see that it may be causing extreme weather, not preventing it?

For all our efforts, our focus on climate change, nature has never been the focus. Our thoughts, concerns and efforts been about how we see the world.  The fact we used more resources and give less back to the environment than any other species seems to escape consideration in solving climate change.

Air Pollution's the Answer!  if we want to support Nature.








Sunday, April 17, 2022

Climate Change 2022: Why CO2 levels are NOT Increasing But Science Thinks They Have (A FACS Teacher Explains)

It has been a strange week for the discussion of climate change.The federal government reversed course to increase domestic oil and gas production. The President authorized higher levels of ethanol in vehicle fuels and he returned to an Obama era pledge to increase conservation initiatives that would set aside even more land for non-commercial uses. But it was the  global protests of idealistic scientists that seemed most out of place in the lead up to Earth Day 2022. Generally armed with irrefutable fact, that science must resort to the emotional protest model clearly shows that their theory and plan for the future is off kilter. 

Can a retired farmer and FACS teacher from rural Virginia show our protesters from Scientist Rebellion  that greenhouse gas theory only lives on the pages of spreadsheets and scientific reports. More troublesome is how does one explain that for all their dedication and passion for the subject, scientific findings have little more backing them than a gypsy's crystal ball in a roadside carnival. The challenge is on even with the potential for hurt feelings of those who work daily supporting a global vision of climate change for which there is in no physical proof.

Why Worry About Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gas is a loose term used to describe any gas that includes carbon or is on a list of restricted gases published by federal or state environmental agencies. What most people do not realize about greenhouse gases is that they are the foundation of the "Circle of Life" and have been a part of the Earth since the beginning of time. Why they are considered bad is the belief by some that they are responsible for warmer temperatures and erratic weather. Neither is true.

In FACS (Family and Consumer Science), math is used more often than you might think even if it seems basic. Ratios (comparing one small number to a much larger number) is used in recipes, planning diets, figuring retail discounts and other ways such as pattern alterations and budgets. The problem is they can be tricky, particularly when using computer. The wrong formula in the wrong column can send data into a place that is truly fictional  Unfortunately, that is what appears to have happened here and why greenhouse gas theory is fundamentally flawed. 

Climate advocates believe that the ratio of carbon gases is getting larger and that it is dangerous for the planet. Perhaps the question needs to be were the right numbers added, subtracted, multiplied and divided in the right order and in the right way to give a factual answer.

It's Takes a Bag of Jelly Beans to Make This Simple

Understanding the atmosphere is easier when you have something real to compare it to. Called an object lesson, such explanations are used frequently in public schools. Try it yourself. 

Start with 100 multi-colored jelly beans of which 5 are black. These will represent our dastardly greenhouse gases at 5% of the atmosphere.  Commonly used as a base line for what a normal or safe level of CO2 is, modern scientists may not realize how much the atmosphere has changed in the last 70 years.

Changing Our Jelly Bean Atmosphere

Like eating jelly beans, today's EPA regulations and healthcare industry make gases  disappear.  Let's see where they go.

For this experiment, eat 10 green ones first (hospitals take out oxygen for medical purposes). Next, pretend a friend comes by and takes a handful (14) of mixed colors without telling you (representing EPA restrictions of multiple gases). You drop three red ones which the dog eats (these are nitrogen used in healthcare for preserving tissue, sperm and donor eggs) . Notice the Black ones are still in the bowl. You may think that nothing has happened to these and math implies that they have increased to  7.3% of the remaining jelly beans. The truth is something far more environmentally magical.

Without being noticed, a half dozen people came by and either took a black bean or left one.  This is how CO2 works in nature. For every molecule that a plant uses, an animal gives off one to keep a stead supply available for all plants. Isn't Nature AMAZING!

The Curse of Poor Math Skills on Modern Science

For all the wonderful tasks that computers do, taking math equations out of the hands of scientists has to be a curse.  Only with paper and pencil (or chalkboard and chalk) is it possible to allow others to check our math and correct mistakes. 

Infecting every part of research (economic, medical, and environmental), errors in math should be considered the single most common factor that impacts success. If those who make up the Scientist Rebellion group can prove their findings without using a computer or satellite image (just as I have done here) then they will gain the support they so desperately want. 

Other Tidbits to Know

1.  Carbon dioxide is common at ground level because it is heavier than other gases. Besides how are plants suppose to use CO2 if it doesn't stay where the plants are. ????

2. Carbon dioxide needs to be in water as much as it needs to be in air. Without CO2, algae and seaweed varieties will die from a lake of it. Then, small fish varieties will die and then big fish varieties will die and so on. 

3. Carbon dioxide is more common in urban areas, not so much in rural areas. If this is a problem, than it is an urban problem not a global one. 

4. Efforts to "capture" carbon and remove it could have long lasting negative effects on plant life. Some manufacturing may see it as a more environmentally friendly replacement for coal.  In reality, removing carbon from the atmosphere could could cause forests to die if they are located too close to these carbon capture operations. 

5. Solar and wind power will not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air since most of it comes from living beings. 

6. While burning fossil fuels does give off CO2, it also gives off other gases which are essential to health plant growth in the wild. The only way to make up for those gases is to physically fertilize wildlife habitats with products--- wait for it--- that come from fossil fuels.  Doesn't make sense does it?



Greenhouse gas theory is 

Sunday, April 10, 2022

Climate Change 2022: AGAIN! Why Sea Levels are Not Rising and Never Will (A FACS Teacher Explains)

*April 12 Update: The Guardian posted an interesting op/Ed about the practice of publishing scientific research (click here for article).  Perhpas we are increaseing awareness about inaccuracies in scientific research.  Good Article that speaks well to the problem with developing a climate change plan for the future.

Can a FACS teacher from rural Virginia show climatologists where they have gone wrong in their study of global warming? The challenge is on. 

Lately, The Guardian (, an internationally based media group that seems to like to stir the pot more than inform, has gone out of its way to promote climate change panic particularly in the US and United Kingdom. This week they used a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (February 2022) to explain how coastal communities will see as much as a 12 in increase in sea levels in the next 30 years. The article argues for federal money and large scale infrastructure for which there is little support in Congress. With emphatic words but little proof, the Guardian makes the case for a now-or-never response to computer generated predictions and little physical evidence. To see the article itself click here. To see this blog's response to the NOAA report click here. To read all about how real life undercuts climate change theory, purchase a copy of this author's book Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.

As a FACS teacher, you show students how to deal with science without getting hung up in the complicated details. Understanding how an stove or cook top works delves into the different types of heat. Passive solar home design is the greenhouse effect. Food preparation deals with sanitation, bacteria growth and how all of that spreads disease if you are not careful. Then there are the components of a healthy diet that satisfies but wards off illness at the same time, Financial literacy shows you how numbers can mean different things at different times but rarely tell the whole story (I have money in my bank account but do I have money to spend???).  And the list goes on.  

All that is to say that FACS teaches the reality of life, not its theory.  Here is the REAL way to look at global warming and its data.  Once you read it, you will understand how scientists which never leave teir computers could so easily become overwhelmed into believe the World was coming to an end.

1. Measurements are Time Sensitive

The problem with the digital age is that we believe that all things can be converted into numbers.  In reality, each measurement is only good for the millisecond it took to take it. It has no permanence or value except in that one moment of time. Trying to convince people who live in the physical world that data alone proves the future is hard to do. 

Nature constantly changes, Wind speeds vary up and down in the same manner as animals breathe in and out.  Five pounds of flour and five pounds of sugar take up different amounts of space and are used in different dishes. A t-bone steak is never the same thickness, weight, calorie content or size as the last, even though it looks identical. To expand that, there is also the concept of walking a mile as figured in steps but how far does one actually travel when exercising on a treadmill. Measurement is always relative and as such cannot be fairly compared.  Any study that uses data alone should be be questioned for bias. 

In regard to climate change, sea levels are constantly changing because of gravitational activity that has nothing to do with climate.  Comparing sea levels as a proof of global warming is like following a lifelong dieter whose weight swings 10 pounds as the seasons change. Which number out of hundreds of possible answers do you choose for documentation this person's weight. Those who believe in global warming choose to record the high numbers and ignore the low numbers giving a false impression of what is a regular and predictable shift.

2. Erosion  Is the Silent Culprit

Consider this situation. On your drive to work one morning, you pass a long deep ditch at the side of the road. The damage is clear. Which conclusion would your draw? That something caused the road to raise a foot or more overnight, or that the rain from last night's thunderstorm eroded the shoulder. Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

Geologists have been studying erosion and its impact on shore lines for centuries. It is an ongoing struggle for businesses which own beach front property to battle this gradual and sneaky enemy.  Like the road that appears to be higher, it is erosion that lowered the shore, not a rising water level.

The problem is common to owners of beach front property. Truck loads of sand and rock are frequently brought in to repair that which is carried away by the waves. Funding from federal sources however, is limited to repairs from disasters not general wear and tear.  Climate change is the disaster these communities need to get millions of dollars in funding for projects that would otherwise be ineligible.

3. Nothing Occurs by Isolation

Scientists like to test their theories in isolation. Similar to a race horse that clocks at a fast enough pace to beat the course record when on home turf but can't finish in the top three in an actual race, climate change data from animation, simulation or even physical data collection cannot duplicate the unpredictable elements of a natural environment.  In the same way that humidity can ruin a batch of candy or kids running through the kitchen at just the right moment can cause souffle to fall, most climate studies do not hold up under the strong light of reality.  Without the emotional panic that is a part of their predictions, there would be nothing to hold the attention of donors and government funding sources.

4. No Such Thing as Kinda Frozen

Recently, scientists reported a 70degree F swing in temperature for Antarctica and a 50 degree F increase for the Arctic Circle. Starting a panic as The Guardian and other media outlets called the difference a "Heat Wave", those reporting the change as well as those reading the report failed to comprehend that the 10 degree F HIGH temperature was still 22 degrees below freezing.  How can all the ice in the World melt if there is a three degree increase in temperature when it is still 22 degrees colder than freezing.  

A lesson in communication from every FACS class is no what you are talking about before you speak.  

5.  No Two Regions are Alike

A FACS curriculum promotes acceptance of people and situations regardless of their differences.  Why is it then that climate change theory seems to focus almost solely on the struggles of urban and well-developed areas. Advocates recommend a single solution for all regions regardless of financial resources, physical need or philosophy.  Presenting an argument that looks and feels more like peer pressure than proof, articles like those that come from The Guardian shame those who do not support their way of thinking.

Does Climate Change Exist?

After all that, you would expect the conclusion to be that climate change is not real. Unfortunately, it is real but not in the way climate studies predict.  

Thousands of years ago, nature came up with the perfect recipe for environmental health. It was easy to make, had enough flexibility in it that it worked out even when things didn't go quite right and could be successful with a variety of ingredients. But there were still rules that needed to be followed. 

  Unfortunately, mankind didn't want to follow the recipe.  Beginning in the late 1800s, man chose to make substitutions, one after another. Like the Recipe Poem,  the changes have been so many and so far from the original that the environment is no longer what it once was.  

Current climate change theory is just another set of recipe changes that will not make things better.  Only when we go back to the original recipe which is based on fossil fuels will the climate again be edible for everyone.

Friday, April 8, 2022

Climate Change 2022: Where Science Went Horribly Wrong on Climate Change

Photo from

We apologize for any disrespect Climate scientists may be feeling at this time but the author stands by the explanation here. At any time, NOAA staff wishes to show hard data about this issues instead of speculation, we will be appay to amend our findings accordingly.  

* Last Updated: April 9, 2022

OK Folks! Time for everyone to take a breath and step back from the climate change rhetoric. With the United Nations Secretary General apparently calling global leadership "liars" and apocalyptic news reports coming from advocacy media groups such as The Guardian and National Public Radio (NPR), it might be time to widen the lens through which we view the concept of climate change. Who knows? Tweaking a viewpoint may be all that is needed to build consensus and motivate the World. 

Consider, just for a moment, what personal bias does to the human thought process.  Is it possible that the science is accurate but the interpretation is wrong? Is it possible that personal values come into play when moving forward? A little history, a bit of redefinition and finally a more respectful and open-minded tone could be the answer to solving climate change without deadlines, regulations and personal sacrifice. 

Looking Back to Understand the Problem

Most historians will admit that the last 100 years have not been kind to Planet Earth. Two World Wars, pandemics, widespread drought and food shortages, along with a decade of financial collapse turned this country that was founded on hopes and dreams into one that gauges every decision on fear of real or imagined dangers..  With the exception of a few years between WWII and the Vietnam Offensive(a time of high prosperity, low health care costs, strong community support and a mostly positive attitude), the United States has responded protectively even in cases of low risk. If we can identify what the difference was in the 1950s, it might be possible to understand the panic that surrounds today's climate change studies.

Contradictions in Theory

What is rarely mentioned is that while America polluted the environment at record levels in the 50s and early 60s,  citizens experienced generally good health and used health care only as a last resort. Pandemics came and went with little impact and weather patterns were so stable crops rarely failed. Moreover, regular food testing showed high nutrient levels in foods and little food waste.  So, if a polluted environment is an unhealthy one, why were the 1950s such a positive time in American life? Could it be that our desire for a pretty environment overshadowed the science that keeps the planet operating efficiently?

Competition vs. Critical Thinking

Looking further, this was a time of growing political competition and tensions between World leaders. First the Marshall Plan failed to unify and reorganize Germany as a democratic state, a historic sore spot that continues to cause difficulties with Russia.  Then, the US unexpectedly lost the space race to the Soviet Union, adding even more pressure to shine on the global stage.  When leaders realized that American students lagged behind other cultures in academic performance, what had been a program for employment quickly shifted to one of science and math. Did we seek to solve problems that were only in our mind or was pollution really the human and environmental danger we made it out to be?

To be fair, everything was changing so rapidly, oversight and regulations mattered little. No one considered the ramifications of replacing scientific investigation with supposition. Partially right was good enough as long as it worked. Even now, we see how the goal to have a COVID-19 vaccine was more about being first and winning the battle quickly, and not dealing with the underlying flaws of the healthcare system that put too many people at risk.  As we go into the third year of COVID infections, those who had studied the virus understood the limitations of vaccines and new treatments.  Like climate change, their voices were drowned out by ambition and status.

A Single Vocabulary

Before we can understand each other, we need a common vocabulary. While climate change words are toss out as if we were born understanding them, there is a great deal of difference in how they are viewed.   Green house Gas does not mean any gas you want to regulate. The Greenhouse Effect is a term synonymous with passive solar architecture and does not depend on CO2 gas. Global Warming is a highly emotional topic that sends fear through the hearts of all coastal dwellers but can be easily disproved by substituting a little math for random data collection. Consensus requires stable definitions and identifiable problems.

From a science viewpoint, GreenEnergy starts with growing plants and animals which are used by the living to sustain life. That which cannot be used for food is then burned and used for heat and light.  What remains after all that breaks down and restores the soil so that the cycle can start over again.  Operating effortlessly since time began, with the exception of the last 150 years, there is no system more efficient or sustainable.

Whether it sits well with our present view of climate change or not, burning organic waste and fuel is the simplest way to keep the planet functioning so that all life is healthy.

Personal Viewpoints

Of all the issues, personal viewpoints, loyalties and mindsets are the biggest road blocks to developing consensus.  Without concern for what impacts its citizens, the US supports NATO, the United Nations and the European Union in their belief of climate change trends and data rather than practical knowledge. Even in the face of mounting evidence that its own regulation played a significant role in environmental damage, supporting a science fiction version of climate change is more important. 

Only a willingness to look at the past in a new light will make it possible to break the bonds that tie political allies tightly together. Who will be the first to break the chains and admit human errors from over fifty years ago laid the foundation for today's erratic weather and poor public health.