Climate Change: Methane is NOT the Monster Here

Since the very beginning of life itself, methane has been a part of the atmosphere. How can someone like me know this with certainty?  Simple.  You see, methane is a natural by-product of anything that is or was alive and if methane were as toxic as those attending the Cop26 climate conference believe, the World would have problems far greater than a degree or two of global warming.

As part of the atmosphere, methane is a versatile  gas that has both a practical use and destructive powers.  If captured, it can be used as a very efficient fuel for heating and power generation. When it accumulates in poorly ventilated pockets, it can be a quick and silent killer. In well ventilated areas, it is hardly noticeable and causes not damage.  However, its far greater purpose for the environment is to act as a filler in extremely high altitudes so that our atmosphere remains thick and healthy.  

Generally, methane forms when plants and animals alike have too many  carbon and hydrogen atoms left over from the growth or healing process. For animals particularly, this is common since all foods contain carbon and hydrogen. Similar to how carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, four excess hydrogen atoms join up with one carbon atom to make methane.  The main difference between the two is that methane is lighter-than-air and quietly floats away from ground level while carbon dioxide stays close to the surface where plants use it during photosynthesis.  

Forbes Photo

Does it not seem a bit ironic that the great scientists and leaders of the World have created a wealth of data condemning the two gases that they themselves produce on a daily basis?  Funny isn't it.  Only a computer would be able to come to such an illogical conclusion  but itis computer modeling that has kept the World in a climate change frenzy for over five decades.  

The reality is that preventing methane from entering the atmosphere is, like most climate change provisions, impossible to do and unlikely to keep climate change from occurring.  

As world leaders and so-called experts stand before the 8 billion residents of Earth and proclaim methane to be a toxic, planet-endangering gas, all one can do is wonder whether they are making up the science or just trying to gaslight a fearful public.

Cop26, the United Nations  annual global conference on climate change, was never going to be about proven physical science.  For now, leaders have backed themselves into a corner by making major economic decisions based on computer models and flimsy, out-of-context greenhouse gas science.  Not realizing they are promoting climate change rather than fixing it, the whole experience is beginning to resemble the climactic scene just before Toto pulls back the curtain to revel a scared and uncertain Wizard of Oz trying to be something he isn't.  For now, all that can be done is to continue to question these wild theories until there is no longer any doubt that climate change is not caused by carbon-based gases, such as methane.

Why is Greenhouse Gas Theory Wrong?

John Tyndall, who is credited with discovering greenhouse gas theory, certainly designed equipment to measure the heat absorbed from solar radiation for three different gases--carbon dioxide, water vapor and oxygen. But his end conclusion does not jive with today's scientific knowledge to the point that even amateur scientists can poke holes in his theories.  Only computer generated "false" science supports Tyndall's conclusions.  Think about this situation from a viewpoint that a computer cannot consider.

• Science now knows that all matter, not just gases, absorbs heat from solar radiation. It is why skin burns and why the pavement gets too hot to walk across barefooted. Tyndall assumed that, like the heat rising from a warm fire, something in the air kept the planet warm.  As logical as the thought process was, the conclusion was fundamentally flawed.
  
• Tyndall lived in the United Kingdom, where overcast skies and moderate temperatures are the norm. Even today most parts of the British Isles get less than half of the sunshine most US cities receive in a year. With his studies predating the science of meteorology, it is likely that he was unaware of the insulative qualities of clouds.
  
• As for why carbon dioxide tested 'warmer' than other gases, it is well documented that the heavier a substance (the greater the mass) the longer an item holds heat.  With its heavier atomic weight, Tyndall logically concluded that carbon dioxide was the gas which keeps the planet warm.  Every scientist makes similar mistakes when they are looking for a plausible conclusion for an unknown phenomenon.
  
• Even if all the carbon based gases in the atmosphere were removed, the surface of the planet would continue to absorb solar radiation and produce heat in equal or even greater amounts than it does now. Computers cannot match the ability of the human brain to factor in the simple along with the complicated.  If it were not for computers perpetuating future projections of planetary doom, scientists would have easily figured out climate change decades ago.
  

What is Causing  Climate Change?  

Like Tyndall, climatologists, environmentalists and leaders around the world are missing one huge factor in the rising ambient temperature across the planet.  Tyndall missed the impact cloud cover has on the day to day temperature and current scientists have done the same. 

Culturally, we want a world with clear skies.  Leaders put environment policies in place that did just that. In a simple case of "be careful what you wish for", those policies reduced the amount of cloud cover worldwide.  By preferring the sun to clouds mankind unintentionally caused climate change.  The sun may be where all energy comes from but clouds regulate that energy so that all species can live well.  

For more information on how Clean Air Policies compromised the environment, please consider purchasing a copy of the book Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.  It is available at online bookstores and in an e-Edition as well.  

infrastructure 2021-22: The Hilarity of a Carbon Tax

** Pennsylvania is--according to different news reports--the first state to adopt a carbon tax policy.  No called "carbon pricing" as if it were a purchase of goods and services, the policy is coming from President Joe Biden's old stomping grounds.  With the cost of living already high in Pennsylvania, the logic of this action is dubious. 

As Congress and the President work diligently to force through an agenda that everyone but those who answer the Polls seem to question, this concept of a carbon tax is dangled out there as a way to fund the massive, catch-all infrastructure bill.  So, while this author prefers information that is well researched and factual, it should be clear that this is conjecture and speculation and not direct knowledge as to how a carbon tax would be used.

Photo (www.itep.org)

What is a carbon tax?

Simply put, it is a potential tax on anything that produces some type of carbon emission. Since nearly every biological function or energy source produces some form or carbon gas, it is an atmospheric gold mine of tax revenue. The unknown here is to what degree Congress will use this provision and how it might be regulated.

Why a carbon tax?

Like the Clean Air policies which began this trend of demonizing fossil fuels, this tax would draw income from actions and products people cannot easily do without but release some form of carbon into the air.  The concept is not new. King George tried it several times ( tax on tea and the Stamp Act come to mind) only to have the colonies rebel against him and his control.

Why have a carbon tax? 

As with most moves by government, taxing is best done when it plays well with voters.  A carbon tax seems innocuous enough because voters believe it will not impact them. Even some members of Congress may not completely understand the science to fully grasp its all-encompassing potential.  More important than the huge amounts of revenue it could generate, such a tax would show support for climate change initiatives adopted by the European Union which are based on Greenhouse Gas Theory. This is as much about earning points with US allies and celebrity activists as it is appearing to address climate change. 

Will this help curb Climate Change? 

Not likely.  As any Star Trek fan learned from the iconic series (1966), the Earth is a world based on carbon. How many times  did Spock explain this simple but accurate fact to viewers is hard to gauge. The average human is 18.5 percent carbon. Every plant is made of carbon as well as every animal on the planet.  With the exception of water, nearly all foods and medicines contain carbon. Building materials such as steel, wood and stone contain carbon.  Fabrics such as polyester, cotton, wool and acrylic are based on carbon.  Paper including shipping containers, hard copy books and even greeting cards contain carbon. To do without carbon is to do without most of the essentials of life. 

What could it tax?

This is where the hilarious nature of the carbon tax comes into play and why every citizen should stop for a moment and think about what that tax could mean for them.  Again, remember every living thing produces carbon gas at some point in its cycle. This is a natural environmental process that has existed since life first appeared. It is essential to life and to disrupt it will have unknown consequences.  Here are just a few things to consider as this Build Back Better agenda takes hold.

• Breathing Could Be Taxed - According to figures that are circulating the internet (which this author cannot verify), the average human exhales between 1.5 and 3 pounds of carbon dioxide every day.  Using the example of a penny a pound, that is roughly $10 per person per year for $3.3 billion dollars. In a similar fashion, pets, farm animals, wildlife preserves and stocked lakes have animals which produce carbon dioxide and methane.
  

• Any heat source could be taxed. Everything from the wood stove or oil furnace that so many rural residents depend on to the high efficiency heat pump with propane backup could be restricted or taxed.  Oil, propane, natural gas, wood, coal, kerosene, paper and even gel alcohol produce carbon emissions.

• Electricity in General could see increased costs from taxes.  According to government figures (2020) only about 2.3% of all electricity in this country is produced by solar energy. Add wind and hydroelectric plants and it leaves 80% of all electricity produced in the US subject to carbon emissions regulations. 

• Imports as well as Exports could be taxed.  This global economy that was pushed so heavily a few decades ago is one that cannot exist without carbon emissions. Container ships as well as over-the-road trucks are dependent on diesel for power.  Large amounts of carbon gases are produced over oceans where such gases cannot be utilized effectively by plants.  

And the list could go on and on and on. 

What about Climate Change?

For now, the leaders of the World believe that carbon emissions is causing climate change. Like the belief in a flat Earth that popped up in many civilizations, believing in something does not make it factual.  If carbon gas were the cause of all global ills, the planet would have ceased to exist long ago.

Perpetuated by computer models which have no capacity to think critically, leaders force people to accept incorrect science in order to financially benefit from government contracts, grants and tax breaks.  Until, the masses question this propaganda, carbon emissions will be seen as the enemy and taxed. Additional regulations will attempt to restrict carbon gasses much like the EPA has restricted other elements (sulfur, carbon, nitrogen, ozone and dust) when sent into the atmosphere.  

Sadly, by reducing these emissions, leaders may further compromise the environment and prolong the climate change debate.

Why does the Environment Need Carbon Emissions?

From the Lord of the Rings to many other Sci-Fi movies with spectacular special effects, movie goers have learned to see volcanoes, hurricanes, wildfires and drought as end-of-time events. Instead they are clear and specific parts of the environment's never-ending process of recycling itself.  Drought is the sign that the air is too clean (no dust=no clouds=no rain). Hurricanes bring moisture from the oceans that replenish ground water sources so that the land can continue to produce food hungry people. Volcanoes are a beautiful, yet drastic, way to recycle the minerals (like sulfur, carbon and hydrogen) that are needed for plants and wildlife to live healthy lives. And finally, wildfires clean up the environment when mankind shirks his responsibility to manage and use the resources the environment gives him.  

As long as mankind chooses to restrict these common and naturally occurring gases, erratic weather will be part of the global scene. Taxing an essential life element because some see it as dangerous is not only hilarious but extremely sad at the same time. 

 

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.