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 (, 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.

Friday, June 17, 2022

Climate Change Pot-Stirrers: NBC and APNews Stir Climate Change Frenzy with Kansas "Dead Cattle" Story

At best, this country's media is naive. At worse, it approaches the level of being uneducated, if not ignorant in its understanding of how our country works. This poses a level of danger that cannot be gauged as politicians make decisions based on headlines rather than fact. 

Until the media starts fact checking itself, climate change will never be remediated with reporters publishing hype over reality. 

Dead Cattle in Kansas

The recent story about about 2,000 dead cattle across Kansas was picked up from the Associated Press, a news agency that has been instrumental in getting information to smaller and more rural areas for well over a hundred years.  But, is what they printed an accurate representation of a climate change issue? Maybe not. 

Kansas is one of the largest cattle producing states in the country with a reported 24 million cattle on the hoof at any time.  Doing a little math, that means that the 2,000 dead cattle amount to less than 1/100th of a percent of all cattle in Kansas. Not such a bit number now is it?

Furthermore, the question no one seems to ask is How many cattle are lost daily in commercial operations?  Yes, cattle die every single day in farming--even the days with 70 degree temperatures and balmy breezes.  

According to, death losses in commercially produced cattle average about 4 percent a year, with the understanding that individual operations can go as high has 10 percent if they are managed poorly.  So what is the average number of cattle that die each day in Kansas based on the 4 percent estimate?  Some where in the neighborhood of 2600 head a day.  

Doesn't that sober the idea of deadly climate change killing 2000 cattle over a four day heat wave? Not so big a number now, is it?

The Insurance Factor

Like all businesses, farming has insurance for some things but the chances of making a claim are pretty slim unless its unusual weather or accident.  By filing those 2000 dead cattle as related to heat stress, farmers have a greater chance to get a return on a dead animal. Haven't we all looked at insurance in this manner?

So now, is this about climate change or just about an industry that is doing its best to deal with Mother Nature and make a profit?  Farming is a business just like all others with losses that can sometimes be insured. 

Food Shortage Impact

As for the impact on the food shortage, this headline did nothing but encouraged meat packers and grocery stores to increase their prices. The actual impact of these deaths is well within the range of normal losses but here is a bit more information about beef availability if you need more proof.

According to the USDA Cattle report for March 2022, 3.01 million cattle were slaughtered during the month.  Even assuming that all 2000 dead cattle were slaughter weight and ready to be shipped (and that is a stretch), that amounts to only 6/100ths of one percent of all cattle slaughtered during a SINGLE month.  The impact on the yearly beef supply is to small to even consider relevant. But the publicity value of these erroneous reports are invaluable as ways to justify increasing costs as all levels of production except on the farm.

Uneducated Electorate

Not only at the mercy of an uneducated information system (social media, 24/7 news programming and commercial marketing),this country has a President who has demonstrated little understanding of market economics and food production. Add to that scary thought the knowledge that Congress, the US Cabinet, EPA, FDA and state and local governments are as clueless of this issue, the potential for disaster is far greater than a baby formula shortage. How long will other country's rescue us before they realize America is not what it claims to be.

Voting for Intelligence not Party

As we go into the 2022 mid-term elections, are we going to vote more clueless people into office because they have a D or an R beside their names? Are we going to put our future into the hands of people who are absolved by law of any wrong doing without regard to the reason? It's time Americans considered their options more carefully than their party affiliation.  

As for the Media, it appears that no agency is above fabricating stories based on political value and poll numbers.  Climate change is not killing this country.  Ignorance and poor leadership are.  That is the story reporters should be telling. 

Tuesday, June 14, 2022

Cheerio Bellyache: It isn't the Cereal. It's our Clean Air (Sulfur Deficiency: FACS Teacher Explains)

Cheerios is one of the best basic cereals for fiber and energy. That said, it is also one of the most at risk for creating stomach distress in its consumers. Why you ask? Because climate advocates declared sulfur gases hazardous more than fifty years ago. AND without sulfur the human body cannot effectively digest complex grains like Cheerios.  Yes, your gluten intolerance gut is because climate advocates wanted clean air and the unintended consequence was a compromised food source and poor health for everyone.

This isn't the first time Cheerios and other plain grain cereals have been found lacking in digestibility.  In the late 1930s, agriculturalists and home economists realized that a lack of vitamins and minerals in harvested grains made the cereal less usable. With the globalization of our food supply, there is no longer any assurances that these grains are raised with proper fertilization.  Without chemical testing of each truckload of grain, there is no way to say whether your grain is anything more than a bowl of calories. The federal government reduced that testing also. 

As we continue to cut sulfur emission from coal, oil and natural gas, humans become diabetic at a younger age, have fertility problems and cannot digest a simple bowl of cereal without taking a pill.  It is this trend that climate advocates claim will lead to extinction if we do not reduce more and more emissions.  Sadly, it is this clean air frenzy that is much more likely to lead to human decline by way of a failing food supply and global unrest.  Are we prepared to be constantly tethered to mineral supplements and expensive health care for the rest of our lives or can we allow nature to regulate the atmosphere as it has done for thousands of years? 

Point to Ponder:  

The only place on Earth that is devoid the what is labeled air pollution is a place without life. Perhaps we should consider our priorities: 

CLEAN AIR or LIFE  What is your choice?

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

The Stock Market and SEC: An Unexpected Danger to Democracy and Climate Change

 It is amazing what can be learned when questions are asked!

Did you know that the New York Stock Exchange did not exist until the year AFTER this country's Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified?  Are we not all guilty of believing the founding fathers thought of everything and that the Constitution should be left as is? The problem is that nothing is static and our forefathers could no more see the future than the climate change prophets can predict worldwide environmental failure using computer models and random observations of unexplained phenomenon. 

With the Securities and Exchange Commission ready to hog-tie companies to a Climate Change policy that  will not only impact the USA but ever other country in the World, is it not time to ask if mandating climate change through financial regulation is democracy-in-action or slick version of backdoor dictatorship by one political viewpoint.

 Perception is Reality

You can only see another's viewpoint if you are willing to look.

Perception is REALITY.  Why are those three words so important?  They explain why America is divided, why our government encourages division and why America's illusion of democracy and environmental concern is part of a package that holds too much weight over the actions of the rest of the World.  You see, perception has nothing to do with fact.  Perception is what people believe and that does not changed until something happens to break down that belief.  

The United States perceives itself as helpful, open-minded and democratic, but is it something entirely different depending on the situation?   In regard to climate change, could the US be an irrational groupie who is looking for some issue to distract its public, or worse, could it be a country that already understands its environmental stand is in large part responsible for the heat waves, floods, infectious disease outbreaks and food shortages that happen around the World.

Biden's View of Reality

As Biden battles to save something of the Democrat's agenda, he has realized that to do it legislatively is impossible. Like Trump, he tried to do it through Executive Order with little success. Then he used another Trump move to rededicate funds to support climate change projects and escape Congressional oversight. Of late, his focus is on using regulation to effectively steer the narrative until companies and states have no choice but  to "see things" along the same lines as Biden's perception of reality. Does Biden actually believe he has the power, authority and knowledge needed to make this planet 3 degrees cooler? Does any World leader have that ability?

Excuse the snarky repartee. Currently, America can't provide baby formula for its children without buying  it from other countries. It cannot control its border with Mexico, or stay out of some type of military conflict for more than a few weeks. And yet,  our Commander-In-Chief can SAFELY air condition the planet  by removing carbon dioxide which is produces by every living creature on Earth--every single day.  REALLY?

Why the Stock Market Matters

Not to give up easily, the President is tipping the scale to his way of thinking by changing the SEC's leadership. Certainly, the practice is not new and is quite common when politics change.  But it is the covert advancement of climate change policy that rings warning bells for those who are a bit more cautious in their environmental approach. 

Through financial red tape, public flogging with prejudicial information and limiting access to the Stock Market itself, the SEC could require global action that impacts every person on the planet.  All of that might sound justified if you share the President's perception but there is a reality to this move that makes it far less noble when viewed on a global scale.

Here's How Things REALLY Are?

The New York Stock Exchange controls over half (YES, HALF) of all public held stock in the World, The remaining 45% of stocks are traded across a dozen or so countries. Taking that bit of information into account, one can see why the world sees us a both aggressor and savior.  

Certainly, the Stock Market and the SEC has the power to bring all companies on the Exchange to heel, but does that mean a country that pride's itself on its Democratic way of life, SHOULD do so? 

In short, if the SEC takes the position that it has the authority to dictate environmental practices and legally damage a company's reputation and standing in the economy to promote political agendas, have we not simply exchanged one rogue agency (Envirnmental Protection Agency) for another?    

In fact, doesn't the Stock Exchange already control far more of our lives than the votes cast in each election.  Why should America's citizens believe that such control is not politically and financially motivated. The doing it for the good of the World argument is after all a position of force not one of democratic choice.

Strong Leaders THINK More Than They Act

President Biden's commitment to a healthy planet is understandable since he has been voting in favor of such legislation since he was a freshman member of Congress fifty years ago.  But like our forefathers, he could not see the future and those policies have made the rich, richer and harmed wildlife and human beings in ways we are only now realizing.  As much as Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Barrack Obama and countless other proponents of GREEN energy push, all their efforts have been based on human perception and not environmental reality. Strong leadership knows when they are handicapped by perception and seek challenging discussion before they act. When thought returns, the answer will be clear.

What Should Biden Do?

When Biden was elected he had the opportunity to be a strong leader by thinking first and acting cautiously.  It is what the people thought they were getting. By following old paths, he has failed to do what the country wants as well as what the World needs.  Globalization has not worked for the environment. Globalization has not work for Americans as we consumer poor quality products from other countries in every increasing volumes.  Inflation is the result of government spending with no real purpose and benefit that wastes the wealth of this nation while enhancing the wealth of others.  Furthermore, the more Biden follows his well trodden path the worse it will be. 

As for climate change, Biden needs to look at the situation from the position of fact not prophecy. Biden's skills as a negotiator have always been where he shines.  Team building is a special kind of strong leadership that this country has not seen in many decades.  It is here that Biden has the chance to shine.

Advice to the President, Stop worrying about being President and do the job that needs to be done. Then history will remember what has happened in a favorable light.  Fix climate change by admitting our laws are to blame and plot a path that everyone can live with.

Sunday, May 29, 2022

Climate Change 2022: Meteorologist Know What Causes Global Warming And It Isn't CO2 Gas!

** Today my favorite weatherman clearly stated that the "heating of the day" was clearly the result of--well CLEAR skies and sunny conditions.  How is it then that the Biden administration is moving forward with plans to extort money from Wyoming coal producers and other utility companies using the myth of CO2 as an excuse.  Sadly, this extortion will then be paid for by average Americans while the money is given away to support Ukraine and NATO.    


There! . . . Did you hear it? . . . That brief comment on the local weather report in hundreds of locations each and every day.  In simple words, it explains why some days are hotter than others yet never tracks or mentions CO2 levels. It goes something like this. 

"Today's temperatures will be more moderate due to the cloud cover that is expected in advance of the front. By now, you know that clouds protect us from the Sun's rays on clear days and insulate us on clear nights, Temperatures will remain more comfortable. This will also translate into a lower risk of extreme weather unlike those hot clear days with pop-up thunderstorms and threats of high winds, and tornadoes. Keep up with all things weather by using your local weather app or check out our website for more information about storm preparedness."

Gee, isn't that interesting? Not a single mention of carbon dioxide levels but a clear statement that clouds keep the Earth even tempered--clouds that some label air pollution when all they are is water vapor.  Why then do NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the NWS (National Weather Service), support climate change initiatives that are clearly in conflict with what they tell us everyday?

NOAA Does Not Track Carbon Gases

In looking through different weather apps and services, CO2 levels are absent.  Consider the following:

  • NOAA does not track actual CO2 levels but uses a computer simulation program to ESTIMATE the CO2 produced by fossil fuels. Last published data was (I think) 2018.
  • All CO2 molecules have the same structure. While NOAA tells the public it can track CO2 in difference places and from different sources, there is NO proof that it has that capability--especially since it does not appear to test for CO2 in the first place.
  • NOAA does not include CO2 levels in factoring air quality which is also a computer generated formula that is not standardized but frequently outsourced to data creation services.  There is no indication that air quality is ever actually tested on an hour by hour basis in any location in the United States.
  • NOAA has no Truth-In-Advertising requirement for such data unlike private businesses and individuals.  Based on the Supreme Court's recent position on the the President's ability to evaluate infrastructure for unspecified "social" climate change risk???, the Court has apparently said it is acceptable for the federal government to apply an arbitrary, and impossible to track, standard for private business to which it does not hold itself.

Also consider these interesting facts to see the CO2 myth for what it is. 

1. Underwater plants use CO2 just like ground level plants. It is normal to have CO2 in all bodies of water.  To remove it would cause these plants to die and seas creatures to die. Like land, the temperature of the water is related to the degree of direct sunlight, not the amount of CO2 in the water (Just like your swimming pool).

2. Plants give off CO2 when the sun goes down because they cannot continue to process CO2 without light. They continue to grow after the sun goes down by using oxygen in the same manner as animals.

3. If CO2 made the World warmer, Summer would be coolest season because fossil fuels are not needed to heat homes, there is less need for lights and better availability of solar and wind power.

4. After thirty years of growth, a mature tree will provide shade for approximately 700 sq.ft. of space (roughly the size of a one bedroom apartment. Clouds, which form continuously can shade hundreds of acres at a time included tall buildings and massive structures. Which makes more sense?

Shame on NOAA

It is with utter disappointment that American citizens are beginning to realize that their government has been the primary source of climate change misinformation for over forty years.  Perhaps, some of these mistakes can be chalked up to fear of one's job, ignorance of science and focus on data, along with cultural brainwashing that blamed a simple three atom molecule for human error.

Regardless of how this happened, it is time for our Commander-In-Chief, who voted on most of these measures since 1972, to act ethically and face up to the reality that everything he is currently doing to "help" the environment is likely causing more damage.  

If you can't explain it without a computer, then it isn't real Science, Mr. President.

Thursday, May 26, 2022

Climate Change 2022: The Science and Benefit of Burning Trash

** As the Federal Government gets ready to lower the boom on companies with massive environmental regulations that are not used by the government themselves or shown to be anything more than computer generated data, please remember that the EPA can control local and state governments but not private individuals.  Banning gas stoves is just such a move to intimidate average citizens to spend (and increase inflation) based on an environmental policy that is likely the cause of poor public health and erratic weather.  Burning trash can help prove these policies are based on opinion rather than fact.  BUT, please do not do anything against local and state ordinances. 


As we go into another summer that is predicted to be hotter and more dangerous than the last, its time to considered the old ways of maintaining environmental health rather than accepting the unproductive, expensive methods of carbon capture and global recycling that World leaders seem to prefer. One example of environmentally based waste management is to burn trash as it is created. In fact, there is a chance that burning trash could quickly and effectively deal with global warming in a matter of months instead of decades.

Let's Burn Our Trash!!!

Wait, before you even think it, you are right. Some regulatory agencies might take exception to individuals burning their own trash, and there are neighbors who might complain. Finally, a dozen medical experts will claim we are endangering millions of people with quack science,  In the explanations below, you will see why burning trash was used for so many years and why it could actually improve the health of the global population.

1.  It is sanitary

In a post-COVID, Hepatitis, MonkeyPox, Avian Flue, etc. world, the idea that masks, chemical disinfection and social distancing can be as effective at PREVENTING outbreaks as high heat has not been proven over time. Discarded items such as tissues, used masks, and paper and plastic utensils as well as leftover food can carry bacteria and viruses to others through trash disposal systems, even giving some germs a safe haven for replication and adaptation. Burning is cheap and highly effective and was so common that many urban buildings were equipped with basement trash incinerators that quietly and systematically took care of the problem with little or not disruption.

2. Burning releases natural disinfectants.

Ironically, as the healthcare and safety industries adopt strict regulations for pollutants, agencies such as the FDA, EPA and CDC ignore the fact that those same substances are common in our medicines and household cleaning products,  Understandably, the pubic has a hard time accepting that moderate exposure to chlorine, sulfur, ammonia and other natural disinfectants is safe and has health benefits for not only humans but for other species as well.  Starting with water vapor (steam) which comes off any fire  (500 degrees+), air that warms to at least 170 degrees F will be free of contaminants.  Not only good for humans, such disinfection improves the environment for all  creatures in the animal kingdom.  As for the rest of these gases, they typically form a series of compounds which are lighter than air.  In the upper atmosphere, they combine with water vapor to produce rain that deposits valuable nutrients back into the soil. 

3.  Burning releases water vapor and reduces methane output.

For those who are intimidated by chemistry, think of trash as a very complex puzzle with thousands of tiny pieces and one rule--you can only use a piece once.  By covering over trash to keep it from smelling, we force bacteria to do the work of a fire in a much slower and drawn out process.  The bacteria use up the oxygen in the trash leaving hydrogen sulfide and methane as the primary by-products. However, if trash is burned, the oxygen partners up with the hydrogen and you get water vapor. Of course, there is some dirt and other stuff but these components are removed from the air with every passing rain shower. Which would you rather have water or smelly gases that no one likes?

4.  Burning aids cloud formation that reduces day time temperatures and brings rain. 

 Somewhere along the line as climate change fears grew, science confused air pollution with rain clouds. Both look dark and both make it a gloomy day. The difference is that air pollution is based on gases that only occur when chemicals are burned in an unnatural way, such as memory foam in a house fire. Another common pollutant was lead oxide which occured when lead was added to gasoline after it was refined. Thankfully, leaded gasoline was banned in 1996 but our impressions of dark clouds being automatically harmful has not changed.  Fires from natural fuel sources have white or light grey smoke while chemical fires have black smoke.  Black smoke during a wildfire may not be a result of the trees but the burning of chemicals in homes or the chemical fire retardants used by firefighters.

The point is burning small amounts of trash at a time, produces light colored smoke that collects higher up in the atmosphere and forms clouds which attract rain. The darker the cloud the more rain in it.  

5. Burning saves space

One of the best reasons to burn trash is the thousands of acres taken up by land fills and dump sites that could be used for other purposes.  Recycling glass and metal containers along with burning paper products could substantially decrease the area needed for disposal. It would be much less dangerous for wildlife and not morph into an uneven landscape as trash decomposes in an uneven fashion.  

6.  Burning saves and can even creates energy. 

Again, if chemistry is not your thing, that's fine but some scientists misinterpret information. An example, while plastic drink bottles, clothing and disposable tableware are all made from crude oil, the process of making them in the first place removes all the bad heavy metals and leaves a solid burnable compound.  Shredded plastic could provide a viable energy source for manufacturing as a substitute for crude oil or methane. How many seabirds, fish or other forms of wildlife could have been saved had science and politicians not over-reacted to the plastic craze?

As for saving energy, the global recycling market uses far more energy than it saves. The United States sends tons of recycled materials to other countries for disposal. Using trash as an energy source could cut our dependency on alternative energy considerable.  While alternative energies like ethanol, solar and wind power are good in theory, they are also finicky and weather dependent. Trash, however, is a steady supply that is always as close as your back yard.  

Right and Wrong Ways to Burn Trash

If you decide to support the environment by burning trash, there is a right and a wrong way to do it.  Here are some guidelines. 

  • Follow all local and state guidelines for burning.
  • Never burn in a closed or covered area. 
  • Expect criticism from climate change advocates. They prefer complicated answers not time proven solutions. 
  • Plan to burn in the late evening or at night. 
  • Always use a metal container or fit pit.  Fire safe trash cans are available but can be pricey. A large metal drum will work if you cut air holes in the side for ventilation. *Remember: Nothing burns without oxygen so it has to be well ventilated. 
  • Locate well away from any buildings or trees. 
  • Small batches work best and can even be burned in a camp site or patio fire pit. 
  • Make sure the fire is out before retiring for the night or leaving home. Damage caused by unattended fires is the responsibility of the owner. 

Capturing carbon may be great for the economy but it will mean a hotter and dry summer for us all. Burning trash may not be socially acceptable at this point in time but it is far more environmentally friendly than any Clean Air Policy currently on the books.  

 Good Luck!!

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.