** 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.