Wednesday, July 20, 2022

One Hot Mess: Why Saving the Planet is Making it Hotter? (A FACS Teacher Explains)

*** Biden’s one billion trees is more about supporting the housing industry than climate change. Wood fired power plants produce the same type of smoke as coal and oil. This is called gaslighting the public. 


We have all done it. 

You open up a cookbook, Do-It-Yourself manual or set of instructions for your child's new toy and follow them to the letter.  DISASTER!

Not to be undone, you try again. You follow the steps exactly, assemble your equipment before starting, have all the right materials and it seems to be going well. . . except the end result isn't anything like what it is supposed to be. Welcome to Climate Change Politics.

Now you know where leaders and climate scientists find themselves today--following all the rules and coming up with a crisis that is "one hot mess". 

Brain Over Computer

As a teacher of any subject will tell you, thinking for yourself is a very difficult concept to instill in even the smartest individual. Forty years of computer generated directions and automatic answers has indoctrinated civilized people to question everything BUT the directions.  The reality of any science is that the science doesn't change, only our understanding of it.   

The question today is . . .How bad is it going to get before these educated thinkers rely on their brains rather than their computers for answers?

As Biden tries to pull a climate change 'win' out of thin air, the problem isn't his leadership style or focus.  The problem is the THIN AIR. Biden simply isn't speaking Nature's language and until he does it is only going to get hotter.

 Speaking Nature's Language

 Until modern science decided Nature could be modified without repercussions, Nature's rules were pretty basic and easy to understand. As for air quality, there  was but one concept to remember. Plants clean the air and animals/humans dirtied it up. 

Why in the world would that be part of a Family and Consumer Science background? Because before whole house filtration systems most females from homemaker to high end interior designer knew growing plants kept rooms smelling fresh without extensive cleaning and artificial deodorizers. Pretty smart, huh?

So what does that have to do with today's climate change problem?  It's simple. Humans cleaned up the air instead of letting plants do it. The chain of command for Nature was broken and not there are consequences that went something like this. 

  1. Clean air makes nature think animals and humans have died so plants stop producing food (after all, there isn't anything to eat it, right?)

  2. Nature doesn't understand why there is plenty of CO2 but none of the other essential gases which would normally be given off by dead animals, feces, cook fires etc.  Naturally, it uses volcanoes and gas plumes to add those gases back into the atmosphere. 

  3. Thin Air (clean air) has little ability to insulate the ground from the direct rays of the sun. So day time temperatures get warmer and the night time temperatures get cooler.

  4. Clean air cannot form rain clouds so rain stops falling.  Plants have root systems and humidity to give them a drink.  Remember: Clean air only exists naturally in a plant only world.

  5. Hurricanes, Nor'easters, and thunderstorms produce heavy rains to replenish ground water. 

  6. When all else fails to bring the atmosphere back into balance, Nature takes to wildfires which use up excess oxygen and spread gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.  Sound familiar?

 All this because humans thought they could do it better than Mother Nature. 

President Biden, Mother Nature doesn't need any more of this kind of help.  Go back to dirty air or pay the consequences.

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

Clarification: The Royal Family and Climate Change

From a writer's perspective, the unpredictable audience of the internet makes it very difficult to feel that these words will be used appropriately.  You hope, if you have readers at all, that they  can understand the technical concepts explained here. You hope the information will start a discussion not a feud. But there is always worry about the lack of integrity in the climate change industry and the leaders who support it.

Today, it might be Prince Harry who was the victim of climate change politics. Yet again, leaders like United Nations Secretary General António Guterres are not above using a well connected young man to promote a scientifically flawed position that cannot be justified by spreadsheets and computer data. (See speech here)  Sadly, the United Nations would rather hold on to 50 years of poor judgement than do what is best for the global environment and economy.  Here's where this blog may have come into the picture. 

 What Brits Should Know About Climate Change

A few weeks ago, during a particularly hot Royal Ascot, the article  What Brits Should Have Always Known: John Tyndall Knew Nothing about Climate appeared on this platform. (see original here)  The reason was start a discussion about whether John Tyndall was really a man who understood climate nor one who simple carried out several experiments which would later be mostly countermanded.  He did, however, explain the insulated properties of clouds quite perfectly.  Modern science just turned it into something else.

As a quick summary, the conclusion was that a history based difference in language caused young computers to link Tyndall and climate change.  The well-respected professor never studied climate or even considered it because the study had not been established until just before his death.  

Where do the Royals Come In?

Understanding that the USA and UN were locked into its illogical position of carbon-based gas theory, the article challenged Prince Charles and the Royal family to take a more political stand in helping the World understand differences in terms and how they can be destructive when misinterpreted by computers.  

Apparently, it was Prince Harry that was feed a diet of misinformation and then put on display for the World to see.  It doesn't seem to have gotten the desired response. If this blog was in any way used to encourage that, I am truly sorry. 

Manipulating data is a common occurrence for leaders. As this blog has stated before, all climate scientists have to do is prove their point without a computer and the world will listen.  Guilt, shame, fear and emotion are not the tools of real science.  

Monday, July 11, 2022

10 Things Insurance Agents Should Stop Doing! (A FACS Teacher Explains)

Certainly, it was going to be different after COVID.  And yet, the crashing suddenness of the transition from work-focused Baby Boomers to the adulthood-avoiding younger workforce came with a high price.  The older worker could almost feel a machine going down in time to stop a complete breakdown or smell the difference between clean stainless steel pipe and invisible contamination of a baby formula factory that would embarrass the United States in a way that other countries will not soon forget. 

The problem isn't the young adults comin' up. Its how they were educated and trained.

As a Family and Consumer Science Teacher, career readiness was part of the curriculum.  By the time the Bush administration revamped education by focusing on testing, the Obama administration changed directions and made computers and gadgets the most important part of leaning.  

To better illustrate what was once taught before enering the workforce, us old people listed a few no-nos to keep in mind.

1.  Using "Gotcha" as in a professional context. 

It might sound new and non-committal but that word translates into being used, swindled or fooled for most older adults. To understand it in a visual context, Google Laugh-IN Gotcha and see what YouTube has to offer.  Artie Johnson was the king of the lewd and crude "Gotcha" moment. I talked with 9 agents in a introductory call and found half used the term regularly. Another three used it at least once in the conversation.  Your trainer was WRONG!

2. Showing up at Dinner Time

A great joke in rural communities, showing up at after the office closes be convenient for the agent but it is still rude and disrespectful for the potential client. Use the Golden Rule if you want to make that sale. 

3. Downloading personal histories, credit reports etc. before you meet. 

Privacy is important and it only takes one slip up to go from respectful agent to invasive and untrustworthy creep.  It isn't worth the risk. 

4. Showing up without an appointment.  

Retirement does not mean "doing nothing".  You are invading their home and turning it into a place of business.  Clients are people first and profits second. They do not owe you a living.

5.   Using the phrase "Your kids would want you to"

No child wants their parents living a solitary lifestyle because they are spending 50% of their income on insurance and healthcare. Insurance is not a means of inheritance although it is often sold as such.  Moreover, using guilt as a sales tool is just plain despicable, not to mention unethical and possibly elder abuse (federal definition)

6. Using the phrase "Let me decide for you"

Again, they are the client not your ticket to a large home. Agents are licensed as advisors not guardians.  Walk that like carefully to avoid the appearance of financial mismanagement. 

7. Assuming mental incapacity

LIke Mark Twains quote of his death, reports about dementia have been found to be side effects of medical treatment and poor nutrition rather than age alone. One day you will be old and you may be treated as a second class person.  Again, just because you are legally providing a service does not mean you are not guilty of taking advantage of an older client. 

8. Adopting the attitude that you are doing it for them

Lieing to yourself about why you sell insurance is a great way to cross a line that can have some serious consequences. You know if your client is struggling because of the level of coverage you or your company push.  Karma always pays back greed and unkind actions. 

9. Using criticism as a way to instill fear. 

Your training may say to point out all the flaws in the property so as ti justify the need for insurance."A few branches can cause the whole roof to go in a storm Is this a plug for your brother-in-laws lanscaping service or a reference to a previous claim that has long since been resolved.  Either way, using fear is a pretty poor way to make a living. 

10. Forgetting that insurance has its roots in organized crime and extortion.

The line between legal and illegal use of insurance sales as a requirement for home ownership is approaching the old days of the "protection rackets"  Al Capone would be impressed how insurance companies have gained Congressional and State Support for something he had tried to do a hundred years ago.

Bottom line


Insurance like health care is a very large component in an artificially inflated and service dominate economy. Curbing insurance costs is an important part of a long and financially viable lifestyle for all Americans, not just its older citizens. 

Think twice before you advise seniors to carry masive amounts of insurance. Its our Country's economic viability that is really at stake. 

 

 

Saturday, July 9, 2022

Let Them Eat Bugs: Climate Change Investors Could Lose Billions If They Follow Bill Gates' Lead

If the quote "Let Them Eat Cake!" is not part of your high school classwork memories, then the similarity of Bill Gates' latest statement supporting climate change infrastructure might be neither familiar in tone nor currently relevant.  To the climate change investor, however, it may be a lesson from the past that foretells of financial ruin for the wealthy and more practical focus on the global economy.

"Let Them Eat Cake" in History

One version of Marie Antoinette's historic gaffe to the starving French people follows a story something like this. Whether it is accurate or not, that is left to the historians.

Insulated from much of daily life in the1700s, the French royal family, lived and ruled from the security of the Chateau Versailles, a community centered on life at Court.   Issues such as illness, inflation and famine were something to be tolerated as part of life. It was not until the reign of the young Louis XVI that royal wishes shifted the focus away from a working economy to one focused largely on the trappings of the Baroque Period.

For Marie, wife of Louis XVI, the loud and violent protests that surrounded her home and carriage seemed confusing and inappropriate.  When asked why they were protesting, and then learning they had no bread to eat, she simply stated the obvious, "Let them eat cake!"  She had no understanding of how crop failure translated into a lack of flour which then logically meant a lack of bread. Because she had both bread and cake, she naively assumed, all people had the same options.

Her ignorance of this situation would go down as one trigger for the French Revolution  (1789-1799), with her being beheaded in October of 1793 as a result. 

Infrastructure Without A Purpose

Like Louis XVI, Gates is a wealthy man and can direct funds to multiple projects. The young King would spend the 20 years prior to the French Revolution turning a well appointed chateau and hunting lodge into the Palace we now associate with the Versailles name.  Like the 2,300 room palace and grounds which were never again used as anything more than a testament to the fall of the privileged, Gates' desire to create a framework of unnecessary and expensive food production could bring him and others to financial ruin.

One version of the businessman's message, "Let Them Eat Bugs!", was recently published by Cheryl K. Chumley, in the Washington Times. The subscription-only article apparently explains why a wealthy man would gobble up North Dakota farmland which until two weeks ago was protected by law. Is the article for or against such waste of resources? Who knows but this post is adamantly against such funding, especially by taxpayers because nature will always adapt faster than humans.

What the Data Doesn't Tell You?

Without getting into too much detain, here are a few missed factors that will cause the "Let Them Eat Bugs!" to fail

  1. A three degree temperature increase could actually expand growing seasons particularly in the Northeast.  
  2. A three degree temperature increase will not cause ice caps to melt but could make it possible for some area in the Southeaster US or Mexico to group food year round. 
  3. The nutritional value of food is not based on the food itself but on the elements in the soil at the time of growth. Fossil fuel use allows this to happen naturally. Since clean air, farmers have to use fertilizers produced from (wait for it) FOSSIL FUELS. 
  4. Gates is likely gobble=ing up land to use for ethanol (potatoes and corn are particularly good for that) which is a poor energy source. It also take food out of the food supply to make a non-edible product.  Gates wants to an artificial oil baron instead of a crude oil baron. Either way it is about making money not feeding the world or saving the planet. 

 The bottom line is that Gates is, like Louis XVI, acting on his vision of a World that has no purpose other than to be historically remembered.

Sorry Bill.. 


Tuesday, July 5, 2022

AP Gets It Wrong Again: Glaciers Don't Melt, They Evaporate! (A FACS Teacher EXplains)

 In yet another quick-type-and-submit climate change story, the Associated Press has reported that Italy's Marmolada glacier is shrinking (see story here).  While there is no doubt that the glacier is  becoming more unstable, Italy's scientists clearly should be able tell the difference between a glacier that is melting and one that is evaporating.  Unless, they just aren't looking and are promoting the U.N. Climate Change Agenda.

Yes, Ice Evaporates

Known as freezer burn or freeze dried, the science behind how and why ice evaporates has been around since NASA used the technology to make light weight and nutritious food products for space travel.  Remember: Freeze Dried Ice Cream. The same principle has a place in nature as well. 

So if this is a well-recognized principle, why does the AP article mention Italy's drought in the first line but defaults to the more politically correct culprit of warming temperatures. That's a good question. 

Glacier Health

Glaciers are repositories of billions of gallons of fresh water transported from coastal areas to mountain tops by, of all things, clouds made of water vapor and impuritiesl like dust and fossil fuel emissions.  Without such impurities, clouds cannot reach the glacier in sufficient quantities to keep it healthy.  That is what causes drought, not high temperatures.

As for the difference between melting and evaporating, that's easy. Water that melts from a glacier settles into cracks and grooves making it more solid when it refreezes overnight. Evaporation due to a cold, dry wind creates thinner and three-dimensional ice loss, like an ice cube tray that has been left alone for too long in the freezer. Don't your ice cubes seem to disappear. Same principle. 

Someday, maybe the Associated Press will learn to check all their facts before running with a climate change story that is only half true. When we realize that fossil fuels are not endangering our planet, nature will quickly and efficiently dump feet of snow in the Italian Alps and restore its glaciers to their natural beauty.  

 

Monday, July 4, 2022

Congratulations! Underdogs West Virginia and Mississippi Win, Big Government is the Loser (A Female Perspective)

For as long as I can remember, West Virginia and Mississippi have been the butt of more than a few unkind and derogatory characterizations. While the connection to "By God" West Virginia had come with family ties, I did not realize the similar national prejudice  to Mississippi until I unexpectedly became a short-term resident of Starkville, MS, forty couple years ago.

Through no planning on my part, I attended State universities in each location. I can honestly say that the coursework taken  was based on practical and factual knowledge, not high brow theory that has little real-world application. Not all of my studies from my drawn out and disjointed higher education yielded as strong a foundation. And yet, these states are seen as dumb and incapable of knowing what's good for them.

To get to the point,  this is a fancy but diplomatic way of saying "If you think these states are run by uneducated and  mindless puppets who pander to the religious right or big business, you are sorely mistaken." From my perspective, this isn't even about abortion or coal. 

In fact, this rare and unexpected display of defiance by two small states is about a federal government that demanded obedience and loyalty for a political agenda, even when it meant decimating the wealth and security of a state's population. The Supreme Court merely sided with them

 Why This Isn't About Abortion or Coal

Like a woman who uses her best pair of high heels to hammer in a nail, the legal profession must sometimes use an unusual tool to make its point.  In this case it happens to be abortion and coal with the job being to punctuate the message that states have tired of the "anything goes" mentality that both Republican and Democratic parties support. 

So often viewed as an emotional us vs. them position, the recent Supreme Court decisions that appear to favor the conservative perspective may quickly result in equally restrictive actions as individual rights of all kinds are questioned in the name of public responsibility. 

Either way, an over zealous Democratic President and a fanatically right-leaning Supreme Court came together to break the stalemate that has existed for too long. 

Why Coal Isn't the Issue?

Prior to the late 1960s, much of this country was enjoying economic benefits that seemed evenly distributed across all locations.  In West Virginia particularly (and still in MS when I finally arrived) each county and town had its mix of retail, manufacturing and professional  businesses. There were the old, rich families, and the young adults who could stay in the community if they so desired.  But with the push for clean air, those manufacturing jobs dried up as if the Dust Bowl Droughts had again returned to rural America.  The regulations, set largely to California standards, were so restrictive that factories could no longer operate at a profit.  

Even more devastating were the federal mandates that limited product options for converting homes and other properties to gas, oil or electric.  Everything from large, fine homes to small two room shanties were demolished or abandoned because there was no way to afford the preferred central heat and air system that the construction industry and urban lifestyles preferred.  Everything a family had built be it business or home disappeared for some in a matter of years.   

It wasn't the ban on coal that mattered in the end, it was the destruction of a working economy that put thousands of citizens at the mercy of low paying jobs and federal assistance programs.  The EPA didn't take coal away from West Virginia. It took their way of life. 

Why It's Not About Abortion

Fifty years ago, abortion was the unusual tool that was used to break a hard-line medical profession that took its "Do No Harm" motto very seriously,  While thirty years of almost continuous war had allowed surgeons to make huge advances in technique and methods, those skills and equipment had yet to come to private practice.  Elective surgery of any kind was considered dangerous and avoided for several reasons. Pregnancy, unless threatening to the life of the mother might not be convenient but it simply was not worth the chance of complications.  

Even now, advocates believe Roe vs. Wade was about abortion and female productive rights. They have yet to recognize this one Supreme Court decision was the beginning of the largest, most expensive and not often curative healthcare system in the World, The downside was that small and less affluent states, like Mississippi and West Virginia, were saddled with the expectation of unlimited, on-demand healthcare as a constitutional right because of Roe vs. Wade.

The reality that these elective procedures and tests drain funds from other more productive programs like police protection and education are of no concern to a federal government that only toots its own horn but never pays the cost, until now.

What Will Happen Now?

Without question the federal government will push back and attempt to over turn these rulings but the pendulum of societal thought has started to move and it will gain speed. 

Now with the freedom to look at actual fact, science will do a 180 and realize that pollution is not the end-of-the-World scenario that two generations of been taught. Old science based on centuries of actual experimentation will replace computer guesses.  Health problems will begin to abate for younger populations and in a couple of decades health will be an afterthought instead of a daily concern. 

As for abortion rights, there are two issues. Insurance companies and medical professionals will quickly and quietly begin to refuse services for more radical procedures.  Surgery will not be the automatic first course of action and health will become the focus, not healthcare. 

As for abortion itself, the states who are rushing to ban all abortion will find it harder to prove it is justified.  You see, before childhood vaccines made it possible for most children to survive their fifth birthday, banning abortion was not a moral issue but a means of forcing women of all races and status to have children for a growing workforce. Capitalism is a cruel taskmaster that does not discriminate.

With an open-door immigration policy and better healthcare, there is only morality that keeps the act of abortion banned.  State and federal courts alike can will find their court cases more difficult to draft since robotics, illegal immigration, remote employement and a steady stream of young healthy children now fill all concerns for a ready and willing workforce. 

For now, let the protestors be outraged and the politicians act without thinking. History will remember how the last fifty was not a time of enlightenment that ended with a thud and a crash but a sad example of what happens to a civilization when opinion replaces truth. 

Thursday, June 30, 2022

One Step Closer to Climate Change Reality: Supreme Court Limits Environmental Protection Agency Powers

In 1970, I could have cared less about the Environmental Protection Agency, smog, Richard Nixon or even the Vietnam War. What I do remember of those late sixties and early seventies is the onset of family health issues which had never bothered any of us before. 

So when I began researching the nagging health issues that still surprise me some fifty years later, it was not a huge stretch of the imagination to realize that there might be a strong, identifiable link between the haphazard and California driven environmental movement and public health crisis that we now claim is caused by something called "Climate Change". 

A year ago last week, I published a small, non-fiction book that explained the many reasons why the EPA had caused the very condition it had been created to avoid. I still believe that the EPA and particularly the Obama/Biden push to force green energy on the planet, is the primary cause of our decline in wellness, growing mental health issues, violence and erratic weather patterns. More importantly, those statements can be proven. 

As the world relies more heavily on coal, there should be a slow decrease in diabetes, particularly in younger people.  Mental health should improve, and suicide rates will hopefully drop off. All because sulfur and nitrogen were labeled pollutants and EPA power allowed them to be removed from an atmosphere that relies on them.

Air Pollution's the Answe! How Clean Air Policy Compromisedthe Planet and Public Health

Read for yourself how the influence of one President and one state doomed the planet to experience fifty years of poor health and ever increasing stress. With the Supreme Court's decision there is no a chance to turn back the clock and restore health the  planet as a whole.




Thursday, June 23, 2022

Clarification: The Link Between the Tree Line and Carbon Dioxide

 Several times, this blog has referred to the relationship between plant life and carbon dioxide in the  atmosphere.  it has come to my attention that one or both sides of the climate change question may have interrupted possible changes in the tree line to be the result of climate change.  To make sure I have not contributed to that erroneous conclusion, I would like to restate my understanding of the tree line and its relationship to carbon dioxide. 

The tree line is, largely but not solely, determined by the highest altitude CO2 will reach in the atmosphere without the aid of wind currents or other factors such as jet engine exhaust.. Trees require a great deal of CO2 so when CO2 levels get weak, the trees do not/cannot grow.  It is this location in the atmosphere that is commonly called the "tree line".

That altitude has to do with the molecular weight of CO2 not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  However, if climate change advocates succeed in reducing the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is possible for the density of vegetation at the tree line to be reduced. It will not reduce the altitude to which large plant life will grow but, like dry areas, if there is not enough CO2 to sustain tall, well-formed trees, then they will not grow. Water or the lack there of also can play a huge part in the appearance of the tree line.

As stated before, CO2 gas and other carbon based gases are not to be blamed for climate change.  CO2 levels may increase the density of vegetation but for the most part, high concentrations of CO2 gas are located in areas far from areas of dense vegetation.  

 As always when writing to those with limited scientific knowledge it is hard to know exactly how much explanation is needed. I hope this clarifies this topic for those who might be unfamiliar or confused in this regard.

The Food Value Cost of Ethanol: The Inefficiency of the Uneducated Politican

The hungry man sees the folly of Bio-Fuels before the World is starving. Politicians wait for the World to be starving then blame farmers, truck drivers, and War for believing  in the illusion of abundant food.  

**Special Note: Do you know why Putin waiting until after the 2022 Olympic games to wage war on Ukraine.  If you follow the global farm report you will glean that he, unlike President Biden, was waiting until the winter wheat crop was harvested, The Ukraine wheat fields are the largest in Eastern Europe  and feed not only Russian citizens but much of Europe.  Putin now has until fall to pound Ukraine before needing it is time to plant wheat again.  

With a quick scribble, Joe Biden recently signed an executive order allowing fuel companies to add up to 15% ethanol to gasoline used in personal and commercial vehicles. His reason was two fold--to steer the nation toward a more climate friendly position and to drop the cost of gasoline by "sticking" it to the oil companies. 

But does our President have even a clue as to what the cost of that move is for the American public. After all, US citizens have come out of a two-year economic lock-down only to see the federal government bungle everything from energy reserves to ever increasing volumes of commercially produced food that has been contaminated with foreign matter, and dangerous levels of bacteria.  Isn't it strange that the more our politicians focus on keeping us safe, the more danger we are in due to governmental inefficiency.

Mr. President,  Here's what one tankful of ethanol could take away from the US food supply.  Can America afford the biofuel World you envision and will we become dependent of foreign countries for our food in this time of transition?

The following list was compiled using a simple calculator (no computer modeling) and product conversion rates readily published on various agricultural websites such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). These rates can fluctuate but are not generally disputed. 

Production rates for ethanol, as reported on the internet, are very different.  They range from 300 gallons per acre to as low as 15 gallons per acre. For the purpose of this list we have chosen the MOST efficient operation and budgeted 400 pounds of corn for this fill-up.

Potential Food Loss for each 15 gallons of Ethanol Produced in the US.

  •  10 large bags of corn or tortilla chips (10 pounds)
  •  12 boxes of corn muffin or hush puppy mix(6 pounds)
  •  10 boxes of Taco Shells, 10 count (8 pounds)
  •  10 Family Size boxes of Corn Flakes (15 pounds)
  •   20 Cans of Whole Kernel Corn (15 pounds)
  •  20 Cans Creamed style Corn (10 pounds--more cream less corn)
  •  10 large boxes of microwave popcorn (20 pounds)
  •  20 pounds farm raised catfish  (52 pounds-2.6 to 1)
  •  20 pounds broiler chicken  (32 pounds 1.6 pounds to 1)
  •  20 pounds of pork, any cut (60 pounds, 3 pounds to 1)
  •  20 pounds of beef, any cut (120 pounds, 6 pounds to 1 but can be higher)  
  • 1 bottle of corn oil for cooking (52 pounds of corn)


Yes, ALL this food can be produced from the corn used to produce ONE tankful of ethanol. But remember this was using the most positive outcome for advocates of ethanol.  The least efficient operation would use up 20 times this amount of food to produce one tankful of ethanol based fuel. 

Has to be Fiction?

Certainly, the math could be off slightly but the federal government diverts tons of corn into alternative energy products every years at the expense of the consumer.  A 2019 estimate of ethanol production was reported at 15 billion liters or roughly 260 million tanks of fuel. 

 An Economy and Government Based on Waste

Sadly, it isn't Biden alone or Trump or even the last 20 years of President's who should be held accountable for this insane notion that an economy should be based on waste.  It is the bean counters and data collection people who create a false narrative of wealth and prosperity based on numbers.  It is the politician who diverts  money away from cheap and sustainable food programs and celebrity and media driven campaigns using catch phrases like Food Desserts and Stop Food Waste in America that promote such waste. 

There is NO reason why anyone in the country should go without food. No reason except the federal government uses food and the environment as a tool against the general population and companies it sees as being to powerful. 

If we unplugged our computers, forget the marketing campaigns and look for yourself, what you think is racism, poverty and discrimination may seem a whole lot more like propaganda promoted by this country's leadership not its people. 

 

Tuesday, June 21, 2022

What Brits Should Have Always Known: John Tyndall Knew Nothing about Climate


Now that Royal Ascot has come to a close for 2022, this year's show-stealing headlines are more temperatures, not fashion, hats or horses. As an American who has followed the Royal Family since the beginning days of Charles and Camilla, I simply cannot understand how a nation of otherwise cautious, knowledgeable and well-mannered people can naively accept that John Tyndall attributed CO2 gas with global warming. 

You see, the study of climate, thermal dynamics and meteorology did not solidify into an organized mindset until years after his death.  So, how can he be the co-founder of climate change if he knew nothing about climate.

As the UN and Royall Family dedicate themselves to finding one, a solution to climate change may never be possible as long as the British people allow one man' work to be misused and treated as scientific gospel rather than simple observation.  

To better make the case that John Tyndall's work, while impressive as part of the emerging study of heat or thermodynamics, is not the great discovery of climate change that we take it for, here are a few more consideration that might help tip the scale in favor a renewed perspective of what climate change is and how to deal with it. 

1. Tyndall lived in a pre-electric world. With coal, wood and peat being the primary fuel sources in England in the mid 1800s, it is reasonable to assume that a continuous stream of smoke emanated from the homes and businesses in the British Isles.  The cloud cover from that stable and continuous use of fossil fuels would have created the moderate, misty but occasionally stormy weather England is known for.  Until England began going solar, such atmospheric conditions would have remained even after electricity was adopted worldwide.  It was the presents of clouds, not specifically CO2 gases that Tyndall credited with keeping the surface comfortable. In reality, he was only half right--clouds keep the surface insulated at night but reflected the harsh effects of sunlight during the day. This, gaseous blanket kept the island cooler during the summer but protected it from extreme cold during the winter months. 


2.  Tyndall did not use the Sun or radiation in his experiments
.  According to a post by the University College London (www.ucl.ac.uk), Tyndall simulated what he called radiation  in a laboratory setting only. In reality, the professor used a system of convection heat similar hot water radiators. The heat produced by sending hot water through copper or metal piping allowed heat to "radiate" into a room. Such a system does not, nor ever has, produced any form of radiation.  It is this type of language disconnect and misunderstand of Tyndall's work that has kept the world locked into a warped belief that carbon based gases cause global warming.  

3. Recording weather data is not the same as understanding it. For all practical purposes, Tyndall lived a fairly isolated life. While we now understand that the planet sports five major climates and sub-variants of each, the professor spent most of his life in one. His main focus for his work was always proven that gases held heat (radiation). He had neither the interest nor the ability to understand weather as it pertained to the global environment.

The Danger of Augmented Data

The very sad situation before the global citizen is that thanks to the push of technology and the work of one billionaire tech guru with little or no scientific background, our global communication network, particularly where it relates to climate change, has been sterilized of all cultural and historic context. To Tyndall, radiation simply meant heat. To a computer augmented search by those seeking to link anything to cult driven environmental policies, it means giving credence to the movement that thought it could perfect human civilization.  

Instead, this belief in clean air, water and food has brought us to a kind of civil war where political leaders have the power to wage war against the environment and jeopardize human life for the sake of their careers. Will they even think about stopping before our global economy again collapses?

Well, Prince Charles. Now What?

So, as the Royal Family celebrates the Queen and her legacy of service and dedication, what will the future bring to the monarchy?  As a great believer in the corrupted  version Tyndall's contribution to climate change, only the Royal Family has the power to hit the reset button and look at climate change through English culture and language.  

Certainly, politicians such as US President Joe Biden, the United Nations Secretary General and British PM Boris Johnson, do not seem to have the education  to look at the the information presented here and recognize that they have been misinformed by countless equally uneducated aides and staff. 

Like the colorized photos that were augmented to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee, the version of climate change on which economic decisions are being made is based on an imagined reality.  

With their decisions based on poor translations and an even poorer knowledge base, politicians must have help accepting they were wrong for fifty years. Will it be the monarchy that saves the World by giving its leaders that graceful way out?  This American certainly hopes so.