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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Danger of Augmented Data

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

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

Well, Prince Charles. Now What?

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

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

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

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

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 Drover.com, 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. 

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?

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.