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. 

 

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

Happe Earth Day 202

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

History Repeats Itself

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

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

The Starting Point for Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Answer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.  The atmosphere changes  constantly

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

2. Trends are not the same as proof.

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

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

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

4. History and social differences matter.

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Our Concerns are not Nature's Concerns

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

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

The Natural Order is. . Well . . Natural

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

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

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

Environmental Enforcers

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

How might it work do you ask? Consider these possibilities

Drought - Nature's Conservationist

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

Wildfires - Nature's Demolition Crew

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

Volcanoes - Nature's Aerial Fertilization Method

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

Hurricanes - Nature's Clean Up and Sanitation Crew

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

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

An OXY image

 Can We Admit WE Goofed?

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

Why Worry About Greenhouse Gases

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing Our Jelly Bean Atmosphere

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

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

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

The Curse of Poor Math Skills on Modern Science

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

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

Other Tidbits to Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Greenhouse gas theory is 

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Measurements are Time Sensitive

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

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

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

2. Erosion  Is the Silent Culprit

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

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

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

3. Nothing Occurs by Isolation

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

4. No Such Thing as Kinda Frozen

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

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

5.  No Two Regions are Alike

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

Does Climate Change Exist?

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

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

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

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

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

Photo from TheHill.com

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

* Last Updated: April 9, 2022

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

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

Looking Back to Understand the Problem

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

Contradictions in Theory

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

Competition vs. Critical Thinking

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

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

A Single Vocabulary

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

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

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

Personal Viewpoints

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

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

 

Climate Chamge 2022: Why the Bill Gates/ U.N Council Model of Climate Change is Impractical if not Completely False?

Updated: April 21, 2002, Bill Gates' latest idea of dumping sulfuric acid into the atmosphere is at best misguided.  See this blog's Earth Day post for more information.

*******************************

Have you ever noticed that those who have the least to lose expect the most from others? Such is the general impression of the Climate Change model that Bill Gates and the United Nations promote. Yet, to disregard these recommendations out of hand is to be just as narrow-minded as those who accept these viewpoints without proof.

Why Should Bill Gates Have A Say?

Many see Gates as an expert on everything.  In reality, there is no evidence he has any background in upper level science or math which is the foundation of knowing the difference between what a spreadsheet tells you and how nature actually works.  As a contemporary of Gates, he and I have been exposed to climate change fears since high school, but our differences in education and life experience speak to how he believes what a computer says and I believe what I see in the World. 

Sheltered in so many ways, Gates' private school education, lifelong financial resources, professional upbringing and middle child status all contribute to his belief in himself more than a good education. One has to ask--If Gates were anyone else in the World, would we even listen to him? Moreover, has Gates belief in his computing skills been the single most identifiable factor in climate change disinformation? Science seems to disagree with him on a regular basis.

Here's what Gates and the U.N recommend and why their recommendations are impractical?

Eminent Danger/ Immediate Action Required

Reminiscent of the lovable robot on the 1960s TV show Lost in Space, one can almost see Gates flailing his arms in panic as he hollers "Danger Climate Change, Danger!" But, trends and data do not make something true, In the professional world, the phrase "Correlation does not mean causation." reminds those in leadership roles that just because two things seem connected, it does not mean they are.

Current belief in greenhouse gases fails to acknowledge that all organic fuels, not just oil, gas and coal, give off similar gases when burned.  To further invalidate the data, any living organism--plants, wildlife, sea creatures and people--give off CO2 all day every day.  

How can Gates promise that this will fix climate change when vitually everything gives off the CO2 gas he proclaims to find dangerous. Doesn't make sense does it?

Economic Solutions for Non-Economic Problems

Another little known tidbit about Gates is that he established a investment firm in 2015 for the purpose of creating solutions to climate change.  Clearly, deferring to his wealthy lifestyle, Gates' plan seeks leverage $5.7 trillion dollars in global investment from governments and concerned donors.  Of course, the expense will be passed on to the consumers while these climate fixing companies make millions of dollars in the process.  

Oddly, Nature has taken care of the whole planet in a sustainable, revenue neutral operation since time began.  It would seem neither the U.N nor Bill Gates feels human extinction is important enough lose money on.   

If Nature has a working model that has been cheap and successful for thousands of years, why would people want to spend trillions of dollars making a rich man even richer? Doesn't make sense, does it?

 Plant based Diets - Short on Nutrients and Long on Cost

Oh what people are willing to believe when they do not know what they are talking about  The plant based diet part of this plan seems very contradictory.  All forms of animal protein including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs and milk are considered off limits even though the animals that produce them are net zero carbon-emission beings.  Junk food and food that is produced in high energy manufacturing plants are acceptable regardless of food value.  Fresh fruits, vegetables and grains are also recommended without considering the carbon-footprint that their refrigeration, storage and preservation would cause.  

Most importantly,high carbohydrate, low protein diets would be certain cause higher rates of diabetes and increase the chances of death after severe illness. In the early 20th century the USDA linked the high rate of childhood death to poor nutrition who lived mosly on home raised foods. Often limited in in protein and B vitamins, such diets would lead to weaker muscles, lower brain performance and lower immune responses.   

Net Zero Carbon Emission

 More illusion and scam than something that can actually be measure, the concept of net zero carbon emissions is a way to gaslight leaders and the public with mountains of data. Not something nature is concerned with, if  CO2 is readily available, it signals more plant growth. If those carbon-based gases are not present in the atmosphere, plants simply stop growing. Nature has an automated fail safe method of keeping us and the planet healthy. After fifty years of infrastructure regulations and hype, man's methods have done far more damage than leaving nature alone, ever could. 

This plan is designed to drive the economies of industrialized worlds while further jeopardizing the strength of the atmosphere. It is a shame that celebrities have the power to manipulate loyalty for their own purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change 2022: ASK ME! Do I Beleive in Climate Change? It's Complicated

** Long even for this author, we know your time is valuable. The information presented here has value for both sides of the Climate Change argument.

Climate Change Apathy Symbol

Back in the day--that day before climate change became a spiritual manifestation of scientific study--advocacy articles were found only on the Editorial/Opinion page.  Now, however, it seems these persuasive compositions number more than the fact-based informative pieces that made the public smarter for reading them. In its latest edition, Psychology Today added to the stew of information with an article entitled. Why People Don't Believe in Climate Change. Since this blog regularly contradicts the methods and conclusions  on which current policy is based, it seems appropriate to look in the mirror and decide if such findings are helpful or harmful to the discussion of climate change.

The PT article follows the pattern of many such pieces and begins with its conclusion--Climate Change is real. After throwing out some important names and outdated statistics (2013), it gets down to the business of explaining why those who deny the science of climate change are endangering the planet and all mankind.  (Note: the study on which the magazine chose to base its text comes from a data mining company (www.youGov.com) that produces studies for individual clients. Such studies are inherently flawed and contribute to the very problem on which this article focuses.)

Let's examine each position and see if this blog falls into any of these categories.  

Belief vs. Proof

While not mentioned in the article per se, it should be noted that if environmentalists could simply prove, through well controlled, systematic study, that climate change exists, the importance of believing in it would not be an issue. To date, climate change studies have, more often than not, been data collection efforts and not any physical or real time study of the planet as a whole.  These studies are lax in their methods and are often funded by clients or academic programs with a stated goal.  

UN Secretary General Getty Image

In the absence of physical proof (not statistical hypothesis), it is the scientific community that has substituted belief for proof.  The study of climate change resembles a fanatical cult with its fearful predictions and narrow mindset. 

An excellent example of this religious reaction was made recently by UN Secretary-General António Guterres whose public statement sounded more like a Southern Baptist Evangelical sermon than a professional objective and rational request for support. No citizen of the World should be subjected to such behavior from a UN representative. 

This blog seeks to highlight good studies and critique poor ones. It explains how different scientific principles intertwine to keep planet Earth functioning properly. The science used in its explanations comes from hundreds of years of collective knowledge tested and ratified by hundreds of experiments. Climate Change is largely based on the observation of a single professor who lived in a coastal community that is now known to be kept warm by ocean currents and cloudy skies. Like baseball players, scientists fail as often as they score, but modern climatology cannot let itself believe in something different. 

As long as the most high profile political organization in the World, believes in the end of civilization, there is no hope for those scientists who could actually provide some functional relief for localized environmental issues.

Naive Realism

Listed first in the article ahead of disinformation, this label blatantly calls out ordinary people for a lack of global concern. Accusing people of seeing the environment only from a naive and local perspective, the description is disrespectful, condescending and seeks to guilt people into following scientists who are just as naive and narrow in their beliefs.  

As often mentioned, this blog points out that climate studies focus on wealthy population centers and ignore areas such as the open ocean or rural communities. When making their infrastructure based recommendations, there appears to be no sacrifice too great or too impractical for consideration.  Is it the citizen who is naive or the scientist who believes in an alternative reality only visible on computer spreadsheets?

Disinformation

Focusing only on one source of disinformation, the article adopts an accusatory tone and calls out any group associated with "Big Oil" while again inferring that all information coming from fossil fuel companies is incorrect or propaganda. Without mentioning that organic fuels have been the primary source of energy for over five thousand years, it seems more likely that present day climate theory is the disinformation. 

This blog uses organic chemistry as the basis for its position on climate change. Unlike climate theory that bases its study on weather trends, organic chemistry has mapped many environmental cycles which have been observed for decades..  While weather is important and can be symptomatic of environmental changes, it is NOT the problem.

Motivated Reasoning

This category is the most justified in the piece. At the same time, it is the most arrogant and impractical.  Adopting the same derogatory attitude towards those who are not open-minded enough to make sacrifices for the planet, this description shows the clueless nature of the climate change community. For over sixty years, citizens have been physically and financially drained by every new environmental recommendation.  Organic foods, catalytic converters, new heating systems, electric fireplaces (what a drag) and the list goes on and on and on.  And yet, advocates and political factions push more and more changes that impoverish the world.  

This blog regularly speaks to the false narrative that environmental problems are best solved by economic solutions. How many of your scientists own stock in companies that produce solar or wind power.  If fossil fuel companies market their product, why would we not expect the solar, electric and wind industries to do the same.  Both have an agenda that neither cares for the environment or the people who live in it.

So, Do I Believe in Climate Change?

To get the complete answer to that question, please visit our publications page and purchase the author's book on the subject.  Here are a few statements that should give you a clue what the answer is

• Global warming an illusion created by those who do not know how to correctly program a computer with mathimatical formulas.  Those who promote this concept still have not figured out that even if the world increases in temperature by 3 degrees F, the polar ice capes and the peaks of the highest mountains will still be below freezing for all or most of the year.  
• Greenhouse gas theory is another illusion created by those who want clear skies and moderate temperatures all year round. Again, the inability to know how to use math properly and to understand that many factors come into play in atmospheric health, lock science into a fundamentally incorrect study of climate change. 
• Climate change did not start with car exhaust, pesticides or acid rain. Climate change has its roots in the search for a clean energy source that started 150 years ago. Again, it is what scientists believe not what can be easily proven that hampers a solution to this important issue. 
• Finally, it is clear that human bias is the most important factor in atmospheric changes which have endangered public health and wildlife.  Humans are to blame but will they be the solution???