Climate Change: Looking at an Elephant Through a Magnifying Glass

** Please support this author's efforts by purchasing her book at  online retailers.  This blog receives no support from advertisers or political parties--just one retired teacher trying to educate the public. Your support is appreciated.

Before it even starts, Cop26, the United Nations conference to address climate change, has experts demand concessions based on their own narrow and futuristic perspectives.  As reported by major news outlets, unnamed "experts" demand (and I believe that is an appropriate term to use) that World leaders agree to a maximum 1.5 degree Celsius historic increase in the overall temperature of the Earth. Do they really think computer generated predictions based on faulty and inconsistent data constitutes "real science"? Sir Francis Bacon, perfecter of the now standard Scientific Method, would question not only their process but the conclusions made using such flimsy experiments. 

Shutterstock Photo

With a good high school and college science education to bank on, I found myself researching and writing a book during the pandemic that ended up being about climate change (Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policies Compromised the Planet and Public Health).  It was not hard to see that Bacon's specific, detailed and unbiased method that had been the foundation of truly significant scientific discoveries had become little more than a framework for dissertations and grant funded papers that were used as public relations vehicles.  In the book, I refer to the trend as Looking at an Elephant through a Magnifying Glass.  Bacon's first principle in scientific inquiry for centuries was to remove all bias and prejudice. As experts, these scientists are automatically prejudice in a way that narrows the vision so that the big picture, or elephant, is not even considered.

Ridiculous Guidelines

Based solely on mathematical projections and not on definitive physical experiment, the temperature data is more conjecture than predictable science. It is simply impossible to accurately and fairly assess the temperatur of every location on the planet. First the guidelines refer to conditions during a time when atmospheric composition was not measured. Second, they only consider greenhouse gases as the culprit even though carbon dioxide, water vapor and ozone are by-products of all life forms. Viewed out of context, new age scientists see any study and any publication as one of fact not the record of the effort. Third, these findings fail to recognize the world-wide move toward heat retaining building materials, roadways and climate control systems which expel heat in the summer and artificially warm spaces during the colder months. This failure to acknowledge other factors is called experiment prejudice and makes the conclusions invalid according to Bacon's Scientific Method.

False Narrative, False Pledges

Beyond narrow interpretation of unproven science, the pledges themselves are nothing more than political ramblings. Like a pinky promise by young children, the compliance is based on faith and trust not hard line science.  How does one measure a drop in the temperature of the planet Earth?  Adding a few colder tlocations and dropping large cities could skew the average temperature by far more than the targeted 1.5 degree Celsius (Approximately 3 degrees Fahrenheit). Sadly, these well educated scientists are either too naive or too focused on success to grasp how easily it would be to manipulate data.  

How will Climate Change End?

There is every indication that Climate Change is a multi-faceted problem resulting from a collection of poor decisions by industrialized countries. Mining the atmosphere of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide for economic gain seemed innocuous enough at the time but it was then followed up by regulating smoke and emissions that simply looked and smelled bad.  Without dust, higher elevation clouds could not form to shield the sun's radiation and bring rain to all areas of the globe.  Gases. thought to be a nuisance or danger, instead carried essential nutrients for wildlife, plants and mankind. When these emission were reduced, industrialized countries turned it in a way to make a profit.  Supplementation with sulfur, magnesium and nitrogen are now required in agriculture and healthcare to keep people healthy.  Poor countries which have no such resources lose their citizens to wealthy countries and make the divide greater. 

Climate change will end when the World's "scientific experts" see computerized data for the biased and inconsistent data it is. Then and only then will leaders be free to roll back their own poor decisions and management of the Earth. 

Climate Change: Knowledge vs. Wisdom vs Philosophy

 

**Please consider supporting this blog and its information. Like Wikipedia, the pressure to turn information into revenue is ever present for a writer with limited resources. Your support of this blog would be greatly appreciated in any amount. 

Recently, I was tagged in a post by a fellow FCS (Family and Consumer Science) teacher (see picture).  I remember the common struggle of my students to understand the difference between knowledge, wisdom and philosophy or opinion. As you might imagine from the photographic post, when the three were used interchangeably, it led to all sorts of interesting outcomes in the kitchen.

As climate change becomes the focus of the news cycle for the next two weeks, there is no doubt that experts and World leaders will come armed with huge volumes of data to support their positions. In this global difference of opinion about who, what, when, how and why climate change happened, will leaders use knowledge, wisdom or philosophy to make their decisions and if they choose poorly, what further difficulties might the World see in the near future?

Personally, I am tired of being chastised by billionaire celebrities, child advocates without a high school education and extremist politicians with an economic agenda. I was thankful for the comments of the UK's Prince William highlighting America's split priorities (We need some of the world’s greatest brains and minds fixed on trying to repair this planet, not trying to find the next place to go and live.)  In like fashion, Queen Elizabeth II has expressed similar frustration about how people talk about climate change but do nothing. With all due respect to these Royals, as leaders converge on Glasgow, Scotland for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (Cop26), the World must also acknowledge that scientific minds must not be shackled by a political philosophy that often runs counter to actual science. 

 What is Known About Climate Change?

The sad but all too human reality is that today's scientific knowledge is largely based on mathematical speculation rather than actual physical conditions. Talking points focus on extremes which do not fairly represent real world conditions. Is a day the hottest because the temperaure peaks for a few minutes then drops rapidly to a much cooler temperature or is the hottest day one that has the highest per minute average temperature for 24 hours. The quick and easy "high temp" version misrepresents environmental conditions and should not be labeled "scientific knowledge". Real knowledge is consistent and predictable without excuses or questions.  It is easily seen and can be replicated by anyone time and time again. The tomato is scientifically classified as a fruit only because it meets the same physcial criteria as an apple or grape. How it is used is not a factor--only the sum of its visible and verifiable characteristics count.

Even though this planet has survived thousands of years using fossil fuels and without global intervention, mankind continues to blame the environment for "changing".  Modern society looks for an easy and quick explanation that absolves it of wrongdoing. In greenhouse gas theory, it found a principle so obscure that even fellow scientists would not understand it, industrialized countries found the "facts" they needed to create a philosophy that was both plausible and impossible at the same time.  Rather than look for wisdom in the hundreds of reputable and detailed scientific studies and historical events that speak to the climate change phenomenon, society chose to adopt philosophy as knowledge while squandering any chance to gain wisdom.

Is Climate Change Wisdom Possible?

Achieving wisdom is not just about learning from mistakes but being mature enough to think critically about information. Real science follows its own rules.  It cannot be made into what people want and does not occur without cause.  Blaming fossil fuels, commercial farming, large families, or immoral living serves no purpose except to divert study from what could be a simple answer.  At the same time, dismissing that which is uncomfortable to admit only keeps this planet in a state of upheavel. 

Until leaders put economics and reputations aside for the good of the planet, this cycle of disinformation and arbitrary regulations will only serve to compound climate change.  Wisdom requires an understanding that being right and doing right are two fundamentally different action. Needing to BE right comes from a place of immature thought while doing what is RIGHT comes from a place of knowledge and wisdom. 

Is Solving Climate Change Possible?

It is certainly possible to solve climate change but only with a shift away from philosophy and toward knowledge and wisdom To put it simply, environmentalists need see nature as a tomato and not as an ingredient in a Bloody Mary.  These well-meaning individuals have encouraged leaders to take drastic and unproven steps to 'clean up' the environment when the environment was working efficiently on its own.  Clean air and clean water might be beautiful to look at but they rob wildlife of essential minerals which are otherwise unavailable in the real world.

Sadly, environmentalists tend to come from wealthy countries. They do not experience the consequences of their beliefs because healthcare and agriculture have monetized environmental dysfunction. The very fossil fuels which are declared harmful to the environment are turned into fertilizers that produce health foods and medicines which keep populations healthy.  Poorer countries must suffer without such improvements and wildlife is left to die out because those who want to protect it do not understand basic chemistry well enough to realize they have caused this heartbreaking situation.  

Its time for environmentalist to see nature for what it is, an imperfect tomato that does not taste good in a fruit salad and stop trying to make it into a Bloody Mary that only people can enjoy.

Climate Change: Air Pollution's the Answer--It REALLY Is!!

With another hot, dry summer winding down, the question remains, Why do governments not act on Climate Change? In a new book, Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health, author Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon chalks up global hesitation to one simple reason—leaders hate being wrong!

“All too often, we, as a modern society, believe in our infallibility. It's just human nature,” explains Schrumpf-Deacon,“If you look at climate change in a broader context, it is fairly easy to see where society turned down the climate change path and how to easily get back on track—even in the middle of a pandemic.”

The book looks at a century and a half of human behavior, scientific progress and environmental responses. Using practical science rather than computer modeling, the author focuses on well-documented environmental cycles that have been disrupted by human meddling. At just over 100 pages, its twelve chapters divide topics into small chunks with everyday object lessons that explain principles rather than dictate theory and change.

“The difficulty will be getting people to accept that a couple of simple mistakes had the power to derail the environment. Even recent reports which acknowledge human intervention as a cause of climate change perfer catastrophic predictions rather than trusting nature to reset itself in the short term,” continues Schrumpf-Deacon, “For too long, civilization focused on making the world perfect for mankind, not understanding that the environment was perfect to begin with. Even the idea that climate change can easily be 'fixed' will be hard to accept.”

The premise of the book begins by throwing out the current focus on 'greenhouse gas theory'. While a significant discovery in its day, the principle was discarded by 19^th century scientists as too limited in its focus. Once science accepts this historical reality, other possibilities become much more relevant. In the end, the book's conclusion is that carbon-based gases do not cause climate change but the absence of what is labeled 'air pollution' does. Environmentally the world was crippled when a few essential gases were removed from the atmosphere by reactive and short-sighted legislation known as Clean Air policy. Put back what was removed and the environment is likely to recover quickly.

“What does humanity have to lose by considering a different climate change solution, particularly one that is historically proven to work well?” concludes the author, “By rolling back Clean Air legislation to more moderate and regionally specific levels, all we are doing is returning the environment to a time during which the Earth was healthy and so were the creatures that lived in it. Computer models only parrot the fears and bias of those who use them. What if COVID-19 is the World's object lesson that teaches us that humanity's view of perfect environment is both unhealthy and dangerous?”

Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon is a retired Family and Consumer Science (FACS) teacher, farmer, and freelance writer. She refers to her background as 'eclectic' and brings a broad-based science perspective to her writing. While acknowledging that the book may never have been written without the keen observations of professionals who questioned current climate change theory, she strongly advocates for rural communities in climate change recovery and reminds her readers that cities are, for the most part, environmenally unsustainable.

Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health was self-published through the IngramSpark platform (Nana Janes Books) and is available in digital and print versions.

***We prefer to not provide a link to a particular seller but searching by author name                can make it easier to find the book.  

Time for the Covid Talk, Mr. President

 Good Morning Mr. President:

While it may have been more respectful to send this directly to you as a citizen comment, I, like many citizens, long-ago realized that the chances of unsolicited input having any real impact on an elected official is approximately the same as winning the Power Ball Lottery with an EasyPick ticket. Nonetheless, there is always hope that these words will someday make an impression on you and your staff.

Mr. President, it is time for the COVID talk.

Too often in this country, federal and local officials have focused on the image of prosperity rather than long-term sustainability as a yardstick for change.  Never considering that these actions would have far-reaching consequences for millions of average citizens, you and other politicians took this country down a path to massive healthcare that thumbed-its nose at nature and broke the one abiding principle of medicine--to do no harm.  Like the opioid crisis that continues to kill an indeterminable number of poor and elderly, COVID-19 is not some freak occurrence of nature but the natural response of caring more about a political platform than healthy and practical living. 

Mr. President, what is this all about?  Do you really believe in vaccines so much that you are willing to threaten people with the loss of their jobs and income? Are you just now realizing that the millions of doses of vaccine that you and your predecessor mindlessly purchased are never going to be used?  What is this really about?

From the beginning of this pandemic, specialists cautioned leaders against banking on a one-time vaccine.  They knew the Coronavirus was endemic (common) and a natural part of building immunity for a healthy life. It has always changed rapidly for the purpose of challenging the body's immune system over time and it will continue to change regardless of the production of millions of vials of vaccine.  Ironically, the Coronavirus is easily kept in check when the environment is healthy and people live within those environmental guidelines. That, Mr. President,  is what Americans no longer have--a healthy and functioning environment.  

The enemy here is not a simple virus that will survive for centuries to come. The enemy here is fifty years of government acting like God to change the environment. If you want to bring an end to COVID-19, it won't be through semi-annual shots but when sulfur (a natural disinfectant) returns to the atmosphere and minerals like magnesium again dirty our water. 

Your strength as a leader is not in following a prescribed political agenda.  You did not rise to the top because you were better than the others but because you had a blunt ring of truth in your words. Now, you follow the advice of a paper-pushing doctor who is as responsible for this crisis as anyone in government.  Not once has Anthony Fauci recommended daily vitamins or more protein in the diet as a way to combat COVID. Not once has he acknowledged that immunosuppresant drugs counteract the very vaccine he promotes. Not once has Fauci laid out a path of  healthy living that does not promote the healthcare industry he has been tasked with supporting.  Is this about public health or public healthcare?

COVID will never end but the end of this crisis will come only when you listen to someone other than Fauci and consider that for all its perceived benefits, clean air and clean water are anything but healthy.  Thus ends the lesson.  

Back to Work: Changing Focus

 In two weeks, Labor Day weekend will be here and Summer will unofficially end. For me, and I suspect for many Americans, this vacation season was something of a reckoning.  The pandemic gave too many of us a feeling that life was at a standstill.  So many times, we were told that hopes and dreams, even responsibilities, had to be put off until a single, nasty virus was wrangled into submission by modern medicine.  For a few short months, it even seemed like life would follow that plan and go back to normal.  Except it didn't. 

At the same time that we dealt with a new unknown, the World was given a gift.  Some of us took this time to reevaluate the direction of our lives and how cultural mores warp our vision of the future. Now, even as leadership and media tells us otherwise, people are beginning to understand COVID was never more than a naturally occurring illness that has been a part of the world since the beginning of time.  Like all pandemics, this one has highlighted the weaknesses in civilization and taught the world lessons it would not have otherwise learned.  The bottom line is that we are human but we are not invincible. Nature is the ruler here and we must remember that. Understanding our individual place in this mix has great potential for improving human existence globally but for now we must focus on chipping away at what doesn't work here and now.

It does not take a psychic to see a change of focus is in the offing for the months and years to come. There will certainly be political posturing implying effective handling of this situation that was, and still is, out of our control. There will be businesses that come to a sudden and sad end leaving their owners heartbroken and financially wounded. There will be fewer products to buy and higher prices for them. To be expected, public health advocates will want to mandate masks and vaccines for every illness and, sadly, the medical community will side with them rather than admit their miscalculations during this crisis.  It is not surprising that the media never focused on those who adapted and kept this country going? How do the resilient millions who quietly paid their bills, managed their jobs, fed themselves and battled the disease feel about politicians and journalists who still focus on the emotional upheaval it created? What does that say about American values? Is a change of focus in order?

With Summer ending, there will be time to attend to the everyday details of life. People will begin to see the slight increases in bills for no apparent reason as companies change their policy to force customers into paying higher costs.  Food shortages will continue as product lines are cut  and distribution goes to large companies rather than small local suppliers.  Gasoline and heating costs will go up as climate advocates seek to limit production on natural gas and other fossil fuels. And, of course there will be the social guilt and petty penalties for refusing the unapproved and barely tested vaccines which would not be allowed on the market under normal circumstances. As families realize their stimulus payments are being eaten up by the need for corporate profits, the ultimate response may not be reluctant compliance but strong and stubborn defiance settling into a basic and hearty distrust of American leadership. 

This pandemic was a gift to the World--a chance to see society for the economically motivated system it has become.  Now it is time to make use of that gift and change the focus of what is important. Question higher prices. Shop local small businesses whenever you can and tell the owner when something isn't right?  Buy quality instead of junk and build wealth, not only by paying down debt but by refusing to be herded into services that have no long term gains.  Look for alternatives and stand up to the quilt and pressure of those who want your business for their benefit instead of your satisfaction.  A change of focus is just what is needed and it is time to say goodbye to getting back to "normal". 

Good Point Arizona: Voters Switch Parties in Record Numbers

** While Arizona's state political committee has chosen to censure Kyrsten Sinema (a fancy way of voicing disapproval with no real power behind it)  for voting her values rather than blindly following the political machine, the shift from party affiliation to independent status may explain Sinema's strong stand for a relatively new member of Congress.  It reminds us that political parties have become bullies who expect loyalty to the party rather than constituents.  Arizona figured this out a year ago. Wonder how many other states will see a rise in independent status over the next few months as mid-term elections loom ahead?

This story was originally post  in July of 2021, The development popped up on my news app.

Before explaining the news, maybe I should explain a bit about my attitude toward what is now referred to as "Social Issues".  This term is a catch all for anything any one wants to fuss about. But fussing in and of itself it unproductive.  I am an advocate for quiet, peaceful, individual (no mob protests for this girl) and active methods of speaking out against a government that is driven more by elections than citizen needs.  There is but one caveat--the debate, no matter how heated, needs to be respectful and civil. Investing in charitable causes, writing letters to the editor based on solid points (and blogs) about specific issues and supporting those businesses that seem to jive with a personal value system are all part of a good healthy way to protest an out of control government, That said, Arizona voters may have come up with an even better way of drawing attention to the dysfunction of government and that is to leave both parties and register as independents.  What a wonderful way to get politicians' attention!

While I am not able to speak to the accuracy of the figures in the image above (statistical research can be easily manipulated), it seems Arizona voters have decided to make their attitudes with both parties clear and it is a message that the country will be watching.  

In today's national elections, there are only four states that really matter--California, Texas, New York and Florida.  This is based on their populations and none are considered rural or disadvantaged states.  In the same way as politicians go after the larger states, it is the cities that are the focus of most local elections. Rural communities and their lower income populations are not considered unless the state is a "swing" state and could go either way. 

Arizona may have figured out a way to get the federal government to pay attention to it, and it may be a good idea for all voters in smaller states to consider adopting an independent political stand for the foreseeable future. 

Why? Because it sends a message that means rural and disadvantaged communities can no longer be taken for granted by either party. Often described with disdain because they do not vote for an agenda which is financially unsustainable and wasteful, rural communities are far more independent in their thinking than journalists and politicians realize. Even though rural America is where most of this country's food is produced, and most of its raw materials for manufacturing come from, political parties typically think rural communities are still in a Great Depression mindset--any job, any opportunity, any service is better than nothing. Perhaps its time for that mindset to change and stand up for rural rights. Other reasons to consider becoming an independent include these questions:

• Why is going into debt always the answer to any political problem?
  
• Why are politicians pushing vaccines and booster shots which are less than 50% effective and have been shown to have serious short term side effects for young people?
• Why is our country exporting food when we are in the middle of a massive drought and food shortage ourselves?
• Why did the government encourage companies to get larger and move out of disadvantaged communities which has only made them more vulnerable to cyber attacks and transportation hiccups?  
• Why is the CDC allowing families to go rent free while the federal government pays families and the unemployed large sums of money so that they CAN pay their bills? 

Politicians work hard but they work hard at being a politician. Leadership is something that is very different and missing these days.  Maybe it is up to individual citizens to take a small, quiet, active but respectful step to tell politicians it's time to be leaders.  

Congratulations Arizona for breaking ground on a trend that I hope will become a nationwide movement.  Good Job!

Climate Story Fake: Newsweek Claims Sea Creatures "Cooked" Alive

This is a one of several posts which relate to the author's book and study of climate change science.  Please read Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Human Health.  

Newsweek "Cooked" Alive Article

This bit of news was surprising coming from a reputable news agency like NewsWeek. On June 5, 2021 late at night author Aila Slisco quoted a Canadian news agency interview with Chris Harley, a marine biologist with the University of British Columbia. With no indication that this was anything more than a copied, albeit legally sourced, attempt at covering an issue that was three time zones away, information was limited to a file photo and a brief clip from the CBC news coverage with the transcript then turned into an article.   These types of climate change news arrticles are becoming more and more common as scientists risk their reputations and their schools in order to make the evening news.  Here is why Harley's observation is not only wrong but why as proclaimed expert he should know that sea life has a unique and wonderful instinct at self preservation. 

The evidence in the file photo was of a rocky beach with star fish, clams and other mollusks stranded at low tide.  Anyone along such a section of beach can attest that such barely mobile creatures are regularly in danger of drying out in the sun when the water recedes, even at much lower temperatures.   Harley claimed that "thousands" of such organisms lined the beaches and the smell was "putrid".  No head count and recovery of the specimens to study. No volunteers trying to save the stranded creatures, Just outcry and emotional predictions of the end of sea life.  Yes, the sea can smell pretty bad when it is hot out but it does not mean that a billion sea creatures "cooked" in the oceans as a result of the recent heat wave. 

As a cook and teacher of food science, the idea that anything could "cook" in the ocean, even in the middle of a heatwave is simply ridiculous.  Here's why.

1. In order for any food to "cook" it has to reach a temperature of over 160 degrees--at least 42 degrees higher than the highest reported air temperature in the Northwest.  With ocean currents regularly circulating water, it would be hard to sustain a temperature anywhere close to the air temperature of those days.

2. The CDC recommends a lukewarm bath temperature of no more than 110 degrees for children and babies. If the air temperature was less that 110 degrees there would have been nothing uncomfortable or dangerous in the water even for sea creatures.

3. Even a common sports fisherman understands that fish go to deeper and cooler water when the surface temperature of water becomes high. It is quite likely that fish and other creatures moved out of the area and into cooler waters during the heat wave but the idea that a "billion" creatures "cooked" is an unprofessional way of Harley and the University of British Columbia to make a plea for climate change advocacy. 

What makes scientists such as Harley and NewsWeek as a publication go after the sensational rather than the factual?  It comes down to one thing.  There is no proof, other than sensational stories and computer models, that greenhouse gases are to blame for climate change. Without proof that this version of climate change is real, advocates must look to emotions for support.  

Seems to me it would be far better to find the actual cause of climate change than to continue to embarrass science by promoting myths.  Climate change is real but admitting the cause and acceptng the solution is not something that comes easy to those in power. Air Pollution's the Answer! and Clean Air Policies are the cause, read the book to learn the details.  

 

 

Climate Study Fail: Yale Study Saves Water but Would Increase Drought

This is one of many posts in regard to climate change that has resulted form the author's publication of her book Air Pollution's the Answer!: How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.  Available on Amazon, Kindle and other providers. 

In the latest study from a prominent institution that promotes government policy more than sound environmental science, a Yale study wants to keep water from evaporating by putting solar panels across California's canals.  While this is a good use of space, it misses on one very important point--without water evaporation there are no clouds and without clouds there is no rain and without rain there is no water in the canals that are now covered with solar panels. Another climate study fail that confuses and desensitizes the public. 

Yale Climate Change Study

The danger of this type of junk science is great.  Largely made up of computer models and grad students who need to justify grant money for tuition and the school's program, studies like this do only one thing--promote a faulty agenda and confuse the real science that is causing climate change.  

The cruel fact is that without particulate matter (aka common dust and dirt) in the atmosphere (controlled by federal and state law) and without water that evaporates from things like canals, lakes, rivers, oceans and swimming pools, there are no clouds and without clouds there is no rain and without rain there is nothing but drought and heat waves.

For fifty years, federal and state governments, particularly those in California, have gone out of their way to clean up the air.  In doing so, they stripped the atmosphere of any chance it had to keep the environment in check. Clean air policies are the cause of climate change not greenhouse gases.  

It's time for citizens to decide. Rolling back clean air policies could "fix" climate change in as little as 5 years but federal and state governments would rather spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure to accommodate climate change that to solve it.  Isn't that called "Gaslighting". 

Hey Average American: Which do you want solar panels and heat waves or a few more cloudy days and rain?  The choice is yours.

New Book: Air Pollution's The Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health

Author Sarah Schrumpf-Deacon and Just a Touch of Sass.com are pleased to announce the release of their first book entitled Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.  It is available globally and in both digital and paperback formats.  

Contrary to what the Internet and social media tells us about climate change, there is a wealth of science out there that points to a far easier and quicker solution to climate change.  This book was written for the general public so that they can judge for themselves whether "old science" is better than "internet fiction".   It is available on several digital and print platforms.

Questions Every Person Should Ask About Environmental Policy

This article is posted to complement the release of the author's first book, 

Air Pollution's the Answer!.  NOW Available on digital and print platforms.

The ability to ask questions and, more importantly, the need to ask them is a kind of intuition that comes with age, not just individually but culturally.  As we carry phones that are capable of answering our every unknown, the idea that the human race does not know how to ask a question will have readers clicking the next page as quickly as a finger tap.  But, had a few more questions been asked and fewer judgements been made, what is now called Environmental Policy may not have even needed to be an issue. 

Education, as defined by something more than the ability to read a public notice or write your name, has only been around for a century or so and was never intended to create a world of college graduates.  Recognizing that people were easily victimized without a basic education, new settlements and poorer communities saw to the opening of a school as soon as was physically possible.  Only when conformity became a workforce necessity did government finally get into the education debate.  The ability to think independently and ask questions did not work well in the days following the industrial revolution. Employers needed workers with common knowledge and common beliefs.  In 1917, the Smith-Hughes Act would be the first in a long line of education bills that would standardized what American workers needed to know and value.   While those skills have turned the country into a great economic power, they have also contributed to a country divided by misinformation, political grandstanding and distrust.  Climate change is a direct response to a society that was taught to conform not to think. 

In some respects, the country has regressed into a different kind of illiteracy. With the advent of the computer, it has become the god to which all questions are asked.  It tells us what is fact and as long as the computer says so, the information is never questioned.

Before an answer can be found for climate change, the public must question its faith in the computer and the value of its information.  People must ask questions and expect more than copied and pasted answers.  Here are three questions about environmental policy that can, and should, be asked. 

Why is infrastructure always the answer? 

The Great Depression was a horrible time in this country, both financially and environmentally.  The steps taken by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman had never been done before but put the country to work while giving it something people didn't know they needed.  The goal of infrastructure, then and now, is two-fold: to put people to work and to build something that is not necessarily needed. How does the conversation change when someone asks a different question?  What do we have to show for all this infrastructure? 

 As FDR and Truman laid out the plan to put people to work, we can only imagine the discussions. 

FDR to Adviser:  And who will be responsible for the upkeep on all these CCC projects?

Advisers: Once the economy is back to "normal" there will be more than enough tax revenue to keep things in good shape, Mr. President.  What we are doing here is top-of-the-line.  These improvements will last for decades and bring huge amounts of revenue into the states. They will be so proud of what we have given them that they will be happy to keep them like new!

FDR: Well then, since that problem has been solved, Let's get on with it!

Of course, that isn't how things worked in the end. Every locality and state is grappling with the cost of maintaining parks, highways, drainage projects and utilities that it neither asked for nor had any experience in managing.  Yet, the practice of hiring cheap labor to do back-breaking work is an institution the American workforce may never overcome. 

Environmentally, what is it that is needed here?  For most, if not all of its history, the United States as chosen to go bigger rather than better.  More land, more  jobs and more people have been the goals. Environmentally, those areas which were the most successful are now hurting the most from its environmental cost.  Should Americans trust the rhetoric like the illiterate public it once was or should it ask a lot more questions of our elected representatives, expect them to have a basic education in something other than economics and the law and require the infrastructure to be compliant with the environment not the other way around? 

In the eighty-five years since WWII ended, has the goal been to grow the economy or build something just because it could be built.  Hard and inflexible substances such as steel and concrete go against the environment which is constantly changing.  How will the environment respond when we again try to mold it to human expectations?

Why is the principle of global warming called "greenhouse gases"?

Did you know that the man who is credited with developing "greenhouse gas theory" did not invent the greenhouse, nor does it appear that he ever owned one?  So why would a person who had no experience with a greenhouse decide to call his work on radiation "greenhouse gases"?  Moreover, what would make him draw such sweeping conclusions that are now used to predict the end of Earth as we know it? That is a good question and one that the computer and internet never seem to address. 

Much like now, greenhouses in the mid 1800s had one purpose and only one purpose, to grow plants when the weather did not allow it to be done outdoors.  For the average person, it did not matter how it worked but that lemon trees could be grown in the dead of winter as a cure for scurvy and that orchids and other fresh flowers were always available to decorate the homes of the wealthy.  Additionally, medicinal herbs were grown as birth control, laxatives and immune boosters long before today's natural food trend became big business.

But, to the scientific community, particularly those who studied sunlight, the greenhouse presented a puzzle to be solved.  Anyone who tried to explain how the greenhouse worked named their theory "greenhouse something". Just like the company who markets the candle in the image above to get customers to buy this product over others, the word "greenhouse" was used as an attention getting device. The competition in the scientific world was great, even then, and the use of such a word had just as much weight as the brand Apple had in the 1970s. Multiple scientists worked on similar findings which became the basis of our knowledge of heat instead of climate.   It is only because of the internet and people believing what is on it that greenhouse gas theory has morphed into something that is different than the study of sunlight.  Just because one scientist concluded that three gases held heat does not mean they are causing the planet to warm up and die.  Climate change is real but if carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapor had really been to blame, the planet Earth would have died eons ago. 

Could Green Energy and its policies be responsible for shifts in climate?

Once the idea of carbon-based gases is thrown out as a cause, what could possibly be to blame?  Yes, human population has tripled in the last fifty years but there is no indication that population alone would cause such changes.  Even without people, the number of animals producing carbon dioxide far out number mere humans.  Could it be that, instead of finding the answer, leaders are reacting to fear rather than fact.  Is it that fear that is causing climate change?

How many times have harmful treatments been used as ways to “cure” a problem?Dunking and stoning of women seen as witches was common to cleanse their souls.  Cutting off hands to stop stealing or blinding because a man looked at the wrong woman did not stop either behavior.  It might be the use of leeches that fits this scenario the best.  Common two centuries ago, using leeches to drain bad blood out often continued until the patient could not restore itself and died.  Could it be that modern science by going after and removing gases is using the same concept on the atmosphere? 

Discussions of what needs to be done to ward off climate change have become unbelievably scary. Reducing carbon dioxide would jeopardize our food supply, turn our landscaping and yards to dirt even with rain and lead to massive starvation. 

As Americans are we willing to let this happen all because we trust computer models more than practical knowledge gained by asking questions?  I hope not. 

When Skies are Too Blue

 

The Pandemic has given all of us some time to reflect and in doing so, some interesting questions have popped up. Now 10 weeks into researching and writing a book on nutrition and human health, I noticed the extremely blue skies during a slightly volatile winter.  The sky was just "too blue" for early March and it made me wary.  Blue skies belong in deserts not East Coast rural farmland. Was I finally losing my perspective after a year at home or is this nagging feeling that something is wrong worth looking into?

I suppose I started noticing the sky after my granddaughter was born. Always fascinated by clouds and stars myself, I hoped that she would come to Grammie's and sit on the back stoop and imagine what the clouds were.  But as i dreamt of those days, I got a funny feeling that might never be possible.  I hadn't seen actual CLOUDS in a while--you know, the kind that move across the sky and blot out the sun for a few brief moments only to travel on as quickly as they had come. Regardless of what the weather predicted, the skies here were overcast or completely clear.  The few times that the fluffy, white variety made an appearance, they were low on the horizon and never high up in the sky.  What had happened to the clouds that I knew as a child?  What did that mean for the long summer ahead?  What did it mean for the environment that depended on them? 

I had stopped listening to the panicked news reports of greenhouse gases causing global warming a long time ago.  I did not doubt there was something out there that was wrong with the environment but I knew carbon dioxide gas was not the cause of the heat wave that would hit every July nor did it keep my car windows from icing over for several months in the winter. 

 My education as a kid had been a good one.  As a child of the Space Race when the term STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) was first coined, a good understanding of science was one thing I had been given.  Following that with a college education that included physical science, sociology, psychology, microbiology and human growth and development, I knew the mass of a carbon dioxide atom  was not large enough to hold heat for very long.  To further punctuate the misguided nature of greenhouse gases, conduction of heat required sustained contact between molecules  and gas molecules did not touch each other often enough or long enough to do that.    As a farmer/ gardener, I had experienced the difference between soil temperature and air temperature every March.  Planting could start when soil temperatures reached 55 degrees even when air temperatures were much lower.  The sun warmed the Earth, not carbon based gases.

But if greenhouse gases weren't destroying the clouds as computer models said so, what was causing this phenomenon.  More importantly, why did no one realize that without clouds, the suns rays would not be reflected back into space where such radiation could do little harm. 

Surely, science had not become that ingrained into computers that people did not realize that clouds had a vitally important role in redistributing moisture and minerals around the globe.  As beautiful as they are, clouds perform a major cleaning process in the environment by taking high concentrations of mineral compounds (gaseous) and with water as a kind of glue, returning them to farmland and vegetation far away from where cities produce the nasty smog.  

As I was pondering the science that was so simply taught to me in elementary school, I wondered if people understood why greenhouse gas theory was wrong and why blue skies were not a good thing to have.  It had been fifty years since the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed, had they been taught something different than what I had been taught? 

I gave one more look into the bright blue and cold Spring sky and realized this was a concept I needed to research further.  What had happened to the clouds? And sadly, why was noone concerned about their disappearance?