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

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

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

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

Why Should Bill Gates Have A Say?

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

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

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

Eminent Danger/ Immediate Action Required

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

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

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

Economic Solutions for Non-Economic Problems

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

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

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

 Plant based Diets - Short on Nutrients and Long on Cost

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

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

Net Zero Carbon Emission

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

Climate Change Apathy Symbol

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

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

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

Belief vs. Proof

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

UN Secretary General Getty Image

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

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

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

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

Naive Realism

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

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

Disinformation

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

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

Motivated Reasoning

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

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

So, Do I Believe in Climate Change?

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change 2022: Don't Panic, 70 Degree Antarctic Temperature Swing No Big Deal

With the United States' climate initiatives hanging by a thread, the agencies that fall under the authority of the Cabinet and Environmental Protection Agency seem intent on shoring up the United Nations Climate Change goals, even if those goals are based on natural events that have exsisted for hundreds of years.  Using a tiny bit of accurate information that is stated as fact rather than explained in context, these scientific efforts mislead not only the general public but the leadership who relies on honest interpretation of the science.

Photo from The HIll Publication Website

The latest is news coming from the 70 or so internationally supported Antarctic weather stations which dot the continent.  In what appears to be a joint statement on which the United States Antarctic Program (www.usap.gov) likely had input, these groups used a twice-annual event to send panic through the climate change community at the same time as the UN was holding meetings on the topic of climate change. Claiming a 70 degree warmer temperature in Antarctica, the news was, of course, picked up by The Guardian, the Washington Post (see their article here ), and countless other radio, television and print editions.  Obviously, taking the information at face value, reporters sacrifice the credibility of their publication when the information is simple to check and found to be misleading.

Here's what these scientists neglected to explain about "extreme" weather changes that are now occuring at each of the poles. 

Temperature Extremes are Short Lived

Every year, twice a year, the Earth moves to a position so that half of the planet directly faces the sun at one time.  We call this the first day of Spring and the first day of Fall (aka. Equinox).  This means that every point on the Earth, from the poles to the Equator gets about 12 hours of sunshine and the sun's rays are hitting the Earth directly, not at an angle as they typically do.  For the poles, this means that the sun's rays are the strongest and warmest of the year. Just like the USA expects a week of warmer temperatures for Spring Break or Indian Summer in the Fall, the poles can see a high temperature spike that is predictable, normal and very, very temporary.     What no one wants to admit though, is that those high extremes are at least 20 degrees BELOW freezing and is a needed part of the cycle to keep the ice shelf viable and healthy. 

Ice Shelf Collapses

A followup story, has one ice shelves collapsing in satellite images (see photo above).  Again, this is good news, not a sign of impending doom.  All ice, even in a pond or lake during the winter, collects air pockets underneath.  This destabilizes the ice and causes it to crack.  When it cracks, especially during warm weather, the ice breaks  and briefly sinks below the surface just long enough air to escape and a new coating of water to fill in imperfections in the ice.  Within a few hours, if left alone, the ice refreezes and the ice shelf becomes stronger and thicker. This process happens at both poles as well as in any large glacier, lake or sea which experiences colder temperatures for a long periods of time.

USAP Website Used for Documentation

Information about the annual temperature difference (approximately 72 degrees annually) is posted on the USAP website.   clearly states the difference is between the summer and winter temperatures and that it occurs annually.

Trust Issues with Climate Experts

Another scenario pushed by a BBC reporter this week was the idea that these normal temperature flutuation were caused by soot from wildfires reaching the poles and causing the ice to melt (black absorbs heat, right?).  What the author nor apparently the unnamed scientists who promote such a concept realize is that 1) the air temperature is still below zero and as soon as the sun went down any melted ice would refreeze and 2) once the carbon soot caused melting it would sink into the ice and not absorb heat because of the ice's reflective qualities. These are the dangers or scientists who make predictions based on book knowledge and computer printouts rather than life experience.

This type of marketing for support rather than honest information is the greatest factor in solving the climate change issue.  Using annual events and geological cycles to describe apocalyptic futures serves no purpose but to waste money and divert attention from the human element in climate change. Fantasy science is more likely to be a cause of climate change than carbon-based gases and fossil fuels ever were. 

For more information about the climate change mythology that is promoted by the media, consider purchasing Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health. 

Climate Change 2022: How Daylight Savings Time Invalidates Global Warming Theory

**. As of April 1, the U.N. has given countries a three year pass to address greenhouse gas emissions. While still holding tight to the plan of a zero fossil fuel, plant-based diet world, this move may be the first step in walking back the agency's strong commitment to the questionable science of global warming.

Leave it to the United States Senate to unanimously agree to yet another environmental adaptation that is completely contrary to the natural order of things--all while spending millions of dollars on climate change initiatives that are equally at cross purposes with the environment.  With the shock of their decision comes the opportunity to explain how the Uniform Time Act of 1966 plays a part in the inaccurate data collection that we now culturally refer to as Global Warming.  

As the Supreme Court mulls over whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the constitutional authority to regulate the environment, it finally seems the time to point out how the short sighted actions of 535 members of Congress sent the country on a path of climate concern and anxiety.  Believing in its own immunity from unintended consequences, Congress must now come to terms with the false data and conclusions its decisions created over the last sixty years.

Why Daylight Savings Time?

The concept of time zones and Daylight Savings Time came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s during a prolonged period of scientific exploration that gave the World everything from modern appliances and the telephone to electric power and the automobile. When man realized he could travel faster than the earth did, some system had to be devised in order for global society to function.  The equator was divided into 24 sections and imaginary lines were drawn to the poles, each section represented a different hour in a day.  Daylight Savings time came about when the 4 am natural summer sunrises fell out of favor with modern society in northern climates. 

While it was only intended to be used during summer hours, different parts of the World began tweaking the concept.  Not only are there many different start and stop dates chosen by each individual country but the northern and southern hemispheres are opposite in how they adhere to DST.  In short, this lack of global consistency invalidates global warming data by breaking the one cardinal rule of experimentation--Control all variables.

Is Global Warming Theory Even Accurae?

To begin with, it needs to be repeated that all this concern is about a mere 3 degree F elevation in temperatures. Basing all of its recommendations on this small increase, the United Nations recommends converting to solar and wind power and eliminating all use of fossil fuels in the next thirty years.  Celebrity advocates such as Bill Gates, likewise, push to make similar changes which would cost trillions of dollars in infrastructure without any verifiable proof that such an increase is actually occurring.  With the prediction that this increase in overall temperature would  melt polar ice caps and glaciers, its easiest to show the true effect of such an increase by applying that scenario to the Antarctic.

The United States Antarctic Program (www.usap.gov) estimates the HIGH summer temperature on the Antarctic mainland to be 14 degrees F.  Even if the world's temperature increased by 3 degrees, the polar ice cap would still be well below freezing at 17 degrees F. On the Fahrenheit scale, the freezing point is 32 degrees not zero as it is on the Celsius scale. 

What's Wrong with Global Warming Data?

The first rule of good scientific experimentation is consistency and controlling the variables of time, place, procedures and so on.  The second rule is have a specific idea of what you are trying to prove. As far as public information goes, no clear plan for data collection or a clear understanding of what global warming means seems to exist. The current definition of an increase of no more than 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius in not specific enough to fairly represent all location on Earth. 

Consider these observations before jumping to conclusions and end-of-the-World predictions. 

* Not all the World is hot or cold at the same time. A 100 degree day in the Mojave Desert (Western Hemisphere, US) is balanced by a 25 degree night in the Sahara Desert (Eastern Hemisphere, Africa)

*  A 60 degree difference between summer and winter daily highs occurs in many parts of the World particularly in the temperate locations of the World).  Example New York City reaches 100 degrees during the day in August but averages 40 degrees in February.  Antarctica also has such a temperature swing as documented on the USAP.org website.

* Two-thirds of the planet is covered by water but air temperatures on the ocean are rarely included in global warming data.  If they are included they use water temperature instead of air temperature which adds even more inconsistency to the study. 

*Population centers are used more often than any other location because of the ease of getting information. However, willingly avoiding rural and mountainous areas skews the results toward higher temperatures could be considered cherry-picking of information to make the data fit the conclusion. Statistical modeling can easily be manipulated to suit the purpose of the study. 

** To learn more about how government sanctioned studies have compromised the study of climate change, consider purchasing the authors book on the subject available at Barnes and Noble Book stores and other retailers. 

Climate Change 2022: EPA's New Mosquito Program Another Reason Why Supreme Court Needs To Intervene

****The Los Angeles Times recently pickup up news about the California shipment of mosquitoes that are waiting to be released.  They also have questions about the viability of this course of action. 

A world without mosquitoes!!  Sounds great from a human perspective but do people hate mosquitoes enough to risk creating a disconnect in the natural food chain that would see small species die out in as little as a few months?  The EPA thinks that potential benefits out weigh the risks but for those who respect Mother Nature's wrath, the concern is very real. 

In a press release recently sent to major news outlets (See version on USAToday here), the EPA is again flexing its regulatory muscles to bypass long standing species safeguards to enhance the current administration's virus eradication policies.  Using virus transmission by mosquitoes as justification (COVID-19 is NOT carried by mosquitoes, just to be clear), 2 billion genetically altered male mosquitoes are set to be released  into parts of Florida and California.  Like the administration's COVID-19 response, the agency is moving ahead against the advice of  those with experience in the field and using short-term, questionable findings as proof the program is safe.  Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court is considering the constitutional authority of this stand-alone agency that does a President's bidding.

Another Example of Faulty Science

 In the same way that COVID-19 vaccine data was skewed by its testing in lock down, this program has limited data taken during summertime in the Florida Keys.  As with any environmental issue, the network of factors that impact the number of these pesky flyers is impossible to gauge using computer modeling and simple numbers.  While it might be true the these males may compromise the reproductive potential in the lab, there is no proof that a reduction in mosquito populations was related only to the introduction of this Jurassic style experiment. 

To be clearer, mosquitoes only reproduce under specific conditions. It first has to be very wet but not stormy, then it has to be very hot and very dry for their life cycle to come full circle.  Any alteration in that weather pattern would disrupt the number of bugs during a season.  The regular passage of storms and hurricanes through the Keys during last summer would have churned up the waters and kept eggs and larva from reaching maturity.  This study's conclusion may have had nothing to do with the genetically altered males.  Other factors that could come into play are undocumented oil slicks, residents use of pesticides or environmentally friendly traps.  Add the potential for a larger number of small amphibians such as frogs and lizards as well as migratory birds (these species LOVE to catch mosquitoes in mid flight) and you have a fatally flawed study that cost tax payers big dollars and has the potential to starve out several small species that rely on mosquitoes for food. 

Bird Die Off Already a Reality

In the same way that the Jurassic Park franchise continues to bring horror and seemingly impossible events to the big screen (currently seven films), messing with the bottom of the food chain may have scarier results than screenwriters could ever imagine.  A single male blown off course during a hurricane or hitching a ride in the family SUV back from the Keys could potentially wipe out the mosquito population in any number of places up and down the East Coast impacting any number of species from fish to frogs to finches. 

The most shocking part of this sci-fi scenario is that the EPA likely did not notify any wildlife agency to be on the lookout for a sudden drop in mosquitoes or those species that rely on them so heavily.  The bottom line is that bugs, in abundance during the spring and summer months are essential foods for young, fledgling birds (young adults) who are making the transition between being cared for by their parents and being on their own. Unlike human society, the term "leave the nest" is more than just a location change but requires birds to be able to find and eat enough bugs over the summer to keep them alive until fall harvest when grass and weed seeds become available.  Seeds are great winter foods but do not always provide enough protein for young birds to survive. In the end, this project could cause a widespread die-off of this year's crop of young birds with no way to replace its needed protein.  Short-sighted, conclusion driven studies have ruined the environment and may cause more harm than good. 

Good Reasons to Back off

By now, science is beginning to emerge which questions many of the policies put forth by the EPA over the last fifty years. From a sulfur deficient atmosphere which also impacts wildlife's ability to produce protein for young animals and the widespread use of chemicals to kill off insects and plants in the environment, it is a wonder that mankind can feed itself.  This may be one mistake that it will take a decade or more to undo with the cost of millions to start it and more millions to undo its negative effects.  

FACT:  A mosquitoes life cycle is estimated at just 10 days long.  Sterilization of mosquitoes could mean a lack of food for millions of songbirds who are just emerging from their nests in May and June.  Starvation is a horrible way to die, especially when an agency that is tasked with the environment's protection is the guilty party.  

Can we afford to have the EPA protecting the environment any longer?

 

Climate Change: 10 Things to Know about the EPA - And Why the Supreme Court May Limit its Authority

&

West Virginia AG Morrisey - WTOV photo

Withy great pride, it is my pleasure to see the State of West Virginia push back against a one-size-fits-all national government and economy that has not been at all kind to the state and its people.  Having pressed for a higher penalty for opioid drug manufacturers, it now sets its sights for the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulations which have wrongly restricted some of the state's most valuable resources.  For me, it is also a chance to validate six month's research into what we call climate change and its effects on personal and public health.   Based on political payback more than science, the EPA has not been one of the US's finest initiatives. 

How I Came to Question the EPA

A year ago I was very literally in the middle of writing a book that I had no idea where it would take me.  It had started when memories of my high school chemistry and beginning Nutrition classes classed with a drug commercial for psoriatic arthritis. Logically, there was no reason that I could see that a skin condition and knee pain would be connected. EXCEPT - they were when you realize that a sulfur deficiency effects both the skin and the production of cartilage. Not surprising was that Sulfur was an important ingredient in the new and expensive drug. 

The problem was that as far as the dietary and medical communities were concerned, sulfur was a non-essential nutrient that was readily available in food--End of story.  EXCEPT that wasn't the end of the story.  To jump ahead to the important part, my research took an unexpected turn when the EPA's creation and actions coincided with the rise in sulfur deficient diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and respiratory illness.  To learn all that was compromised by the EPAs actions please refer to the resulting book which is available through Barnes and Noble and some digital platforms. 

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

1.  The EPA was created at the request of President Richard M. Nixon (Rep) following a series of environmental disasters that harmed his home state of California and fouled beaches near his private home. The purpose was not to protect the environment but to hold companies accountable for the cost of clean up from such disasters. 
2. The total authority of the EPA is under the President's discretion. Regardless of their education level or scientific justification, all President's since Nixon have use the EPA to regulate the actions of industries and steer their operations into directions aligned with personal or political agendas. 
3. The EPA initially restricted six gases and fine particles of solid matter.  With the exception of Lead Oxide linked to lead additives in gasoline, there has been no definitive study done to prove the other five gases harm the environment in any way. 
4. The EPA supports research that supports its policies through grant funding. Several other federal agencies have also been known to do studies which support the direction of the agency.  Pre-1970 science tends to run against its conclusions.
   
5. Of the five elements restricted by the EPA (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Sulfur), all are found in every life form in significant amounts. If life does not exist without these elements, how can they be dangerous to the planet or life.
   
6. The EPA restricts the production of Ozone, a form of Oxygen, and its release into the atmosphere. it does however, allow oxygen to be extracted from the atmosphere and sold as a commodity for medical and other purposes.  The "hole" in the Ozone layer coincides with the technology that allowed gases to be bottled beginning in the mid-1960s. 
7. Nitrogen, which is not only a component in Opioid medicines but countless other medicines for mental health conditions, is too light a gaseous to stay near ground level. Only compounds such as nitrogen oxides (restricted by the EPA) are heavy enough to be absorbed by planets and animals. 
   
8. Sulfur is an immobile element. Unless it is in a gaseous form, neither plant nor animals can use it. Sulfur is a main ingredient in insulin production. Since the EPA restricted Sulfur the incidence of sulfur deficiency related diseases has increased dramatically. 
9. According to its own website and documentation, the  EPA met its recommended goal of reducing air pollution over 40 years ago. It has continued to cut emissions even thought its recommended levels are much higher than those used today.  
10. Finally, as all Star Trek fans know, life on planet Earth is based on Carbon. By restricting carbon based gases, the EPA would be restricting some form of life.  It is far more likely that changes in how ambient temperatures are gathered explains the 2 degree F difference that has so many computer geeks concerned.  Computer modeling is not actual science and needs to be put aside in order to answer the question of "Is climate change real or not?"
    

While the EPA is supposed to be regulate industrial contamination, it has also been used to force private citizens to adopt expensive and scientifically questionable measures such as the catalytic converter, whole house heat pumps, more efficient engines and electric vehicles. The cost to consumers has been higher insurance rates, repair costs and fuel which is now 15 times what it was in 1970. 

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will need to put aside the questionable science and focus solely on the EPA's history of rewarding some industries while penalizing others.  With any luck, this ruling will finally bring an end to the economically based false narratives of climate change theory.

Climate Change: U.N. Climate Study Predicts Increasing Wildfires--Good news for the Environment

United Nations Logo

Perhaps it is a type of Karma that is keeping the World from coming to a practical and science based (not computer-based) reason for the situation that is informally called "Climate Change".  It must be like the Jews lost for forty years or Buddha going in search of truth that is causing humanity to wait for some type of light-bulb moment when it all makes sense. It could also be the knowledge that climate change is heavily tied to our lifestyle, financial markets and belief that man knows what he is doing. Regardless of the reason for the delay, it doesn't look like true understanding is to be reached in the foreseeable future.  That is why this study is good news. Because it shows Nature will take care of this even if modern science will not. 

By now, it has been well publicize that industrialized countries blame carbon-based gases for everything from hurricanes to pandemics. As governments look to solve this issue with cleaner air, Nature seems determined to dirty it up in any way possible. It might be time to step back and ask ourselves "WHY?"

The Article

The article itself (UN-backed report warns of rising wildfire threat ) is one of the better posts in its original form. It lays out several solid, science based reasons for its conclusion and attempts to explain why it is important for the world to address environmental changes in the near future.  While computer modeling tends to take on the prejudices of the study focus, the science used here is relatively basic and well within accepted ranges.  Like most climate change studies it is based on 150 year old data that is no longer relevant because --to put it bluntly-- things have changed. If you want the whole story please read

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

Starting at the Beginning

The 1800s were a time of rapid scientific exploration. A cure for boredom for the rich, great advances in knowledge and inventions were made or financed by well-off individuals. The first greenhouse, mountain top exploration, the origins of life and the ability to create such seemingly magical products as the light bulb, the telephone and yes, electricity were all initiated during this time period. 

What history fails to record is that not all of these "discoveries" proved to be good for civilization.  One example is John Tyndall's assumption that carbon-dioxide kept the planet warm because it absorbed the sun's radiation. Within forty years of publishing his theory (and a few years after his death), his beginning experiments morphed into the study of thermodynamics--all because other scientists found that all forms of matter absorbed the sun's radiation -- not just gases.  

The point is that there is no scientific basis for the belief that carbon-based gases contribute to global warming. Why apparently smart people like Barrack Obama, Prince Charles and Bill Gates as well as Inger Andersen (UNEP Director) and Greta Thunberg promote such misinformation has to be based on pop-culture peer pressure or political aspirations.

Here is the REAL Problem

The atmosphere is the delivery system that circulates and recycles the five basic elements that are essential to all forms of life (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Sulfur along with small dirt particles).  There are two primary ways to change what was alive into gases which can travel easily across thousands of miles.  Burning is one and decomposition or rotting is the other.  Since the mid 1800s, mankind has tried its best to do away with both of them.  

With the discovery of King Tut's tomb, embalming became popular which robbed the atmosphere of gases given off by the dead.  But it is electricity that has done far more to tie the hands of the environment when it comes to essential gases. As long as electricity was produced using organic fuels (oil, coal, wood, gas and others), the environment managed. But it is the EPA's restriction of the same five elements that has forced Nature's hand to bring drought, wildfires and poor health.  Without these natural methods releasing thousands of cubic feet of smoke and ash into the atmosphere, this situation would be much worse.  Until our global leadership recognizes this situation, Nature will need to increase the level of destruction to counter mankind's obsession with clean air and blue skies.  Remember the only places on Earth that have blue skies every day are those we call "deserts".

Why this matters? 

Left to its own devices, the atmosphere will provide a steady supply of life supporting elements that allows all organisms to self regulate everything from growth and reproduction to disease prevention. All people need to do is release moderate levels of these biological friendly gases rather than remove them.  Interestingly, the EPA has forced this country to maintain considerably lower levels of these gases than recommended for over 40 years.  This is how it all works. 

Dust and dirt particles are a necessity to stabilize water vapor so that larger amounts of rain are carried from the oceans to lands (in other words, prevent drought). Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are the foundation of all our plant based foods from apples to zucchini.  Nitrogen, along with the previous three, is the definitive component of protein that builds muscle. It also is a vital part of such mental health hormones as melatonin, seratonin, and dopamine.  Adding Sulfur increases insulin production and repairs liver damage while preventing respiratory disease and fungal infections.  The list of benefits to wildlife and natural settings is just as vital to its health.

Isn't it interesting that these five elements, restricted by law for the last fifty years, are the basis of nearly all vitamins, supplements and medicines currently on the market.  In new studies looking at the ability of such "old" remedies as these, there are new links to virus and cancer prevention.  

Why it matters is that without concern for the people that live here, quick reactions by uneducated and poorly advised leaders have caused the World's health to decline, its farmland to become barren and its society to chase mental and financial health that was once just a breath away.  That seems important. 

Infrastructure 2022: NOAA Backs Biden Agenda with Questionable Sea Level Predictions

** This week (April 10, 2022), The Guardian took information from the NOAA report to create emotional appeal of one community for climate change reform. To see the response to that article go here.

So, if the news reports are correct, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has predicted a definite rise in sea level 30 years from now. The agency's advise is that a huge infrastructure expenditure supported by the Biden administration and Republican backed businesses will solve this problem.  Please forgive the snarky attitude, but isn't this the same federal agency that failed to accurately predict an early Monday morning snow storm that caused the closure of I-95 south of Washington, DC that left hundreds of motorists stranded.  Excuse me but there might be a credibility problem here. 

It is sad to see a country with such creative and knowledgeable people become puppets of technology and economic interests.  Is Bill Gates interested in finding a solution to climate change as absolution for creating a personal computer that was a fine invention but warped the ability for critical thought and honest scientific inquiry? Is the federal government so afraid of losing the respect of the World, it must put out misinformation to shore up its knowledge base and image?  Either way, the reliance on computer data and prediction has turned our culture into a misinformation groupie and our government into grifters who manipulate the data to build wealth like a house of cards. 

What the Report Said

Circling back to the study at hand, it isn't necessary to read the report to determine the selective nature of the information.   The original article from the NOAA website (found here) is headlined as U.S. coastline to see up to a foot of sea level rise by 2050 and hedges the information a bit more than some of the major media outlets.  Changing the wording to ratchet up the sensational nature of the headline Forbes magazine switch the verb to "Confirms", NASA deleted the phrase "up to", and ABC news added the creative touch of defining a foot of possible sea level rise as "Century of sea level rise".  And we wonder why there is so much distrust about climate change information. Moreover, if this is the level of disinformation that is advising our President, Cabinet and Congress on such matters, how can the world every find an answer to the fuzzy concept of Climate Change.

To make this short, here are five reasons this information is fairly worthless and money spent on infrastructure will do little more than line the pockets of those with government contracts. 

Coastal Erosion At Work

1. Changes in the shoreline result from erosion not increased water level.  Any high school geology book will describe how the boundaries of rivers, lakes and even oceans change with the erosive action of waves.  The idea of a permanent shoreline goes against the natural order of the Earth and is a function of man's resistance to change or financial loss. Upscale resorts have been bringing in sand and other materials to repair erosion for decades. NOAA should explain rather than become part of the political discussion about government spending.

2. A one foot rise is not that drastic.  As part of its mission, NOAA tracks the tides that occur on a daily basis.  Terms such as sea level, high tide, low tide, storm surge, etc are approximations of the ocean level at any given time. No two days are exactly the same but are impacted by weather, time of day, phase of the moon, month of the year and even inland rains.  More importantly, even in the center of the ocean, the water level heaves or bulges approximately 2 feet every 12 hours. Tides in coastal areas can vary more than 10 feet from high tide to low tide. One more foot of water will be just a day of good surfing.  ** Remember that in March of 2021, the EverGiven cargo ship was finally floated in the Suez Canal as a result of  an extremely high tide which allowed the ship to be moved. That tide, at 7 feet, only lasted for  few hours.  

3.  Coastal cities are rarely at sea level.   The majority of seaside communities are at least a few feet above sea level. If you have gone to the beach and looked back at land you typically have to look up. If you have to look up to see your hotel or condo then they are at least 6 feet above sea level.  Here are some elevations to provide more proof.  Virginia Beach (12 ft average),   Savannah GA (49 ft), Dayton Beach, FL (13 ft), San Diego, CA (62 ft), San Francisco (52 ft), Gulfport MS (19 ft) and Galveston TX (7 ft). 

4. More water than you think.  It takes a great deal more water to raise the world's oceans by one foot than you think.  With 63.5 million square miles of ocean that works out to about 2 MILLION TRILLION gallons of water.  But the seas only store the water that the land doesn't use.  It's hard to remember that floating ice will not raise water levels any more than it already has in the same way the ice that melts in your glass does not cause it to spill over.  Every living organism is made up mostly of water--even cactI.  To make a better point-- if all of the 8 billion people died and the water in their bodies flowed to the sea, it would amount to less than a trillion gallons. That's a long way from 2 MILLION TRILLION. 

5.  Bad computer and math skills.  There is a big difference between plugging data into a spreadsheet and understand what the results mean. The factors that come into play for this type of study are nearly impossible to put into one study. Remember everything on the planet uses water. Those water levels, in lakes, plant tissues, animals and the atmosphere, are constantly changing. To say that you can predict a 2 MILLION TRILLION gallon increase of unneeded water would mean that you could account for exactly how many living organisms there are, how much water is stored in underground reservoirs,  how much is the humidity is in ever part of the globe and exactly how much ice is currently on every mountain top, glacier or polar location.  Then there is the season of year, the time of day, the gravitational pull of the moon and how many ships are on the ocean at any give time. A Computer is a wonderful tool but it cannot, has never been able to and will never be able to accurately predict the future with 100% accuracy.

 Trusting the Weatherman but not NOAA

Recently, The Atlantic published an article highlighting the trust people have in the local Weatherman.  That person is an important connection to weather related information. But all of that information comes through NOAA and that is where the problem lies.  To stay in line with a 50 year environmental policy, federal agencies have had to interpret weather data to support the position of the administration whether it is accurate or not. Taught to believe the science that agrees with policy, there is a difference in what is now beleived and what was taught prior to 1970.  

As we started is Bill Gates looking for absolution for creating a machine that he promoted as something capable of thought when all he did was create a fancy file cabinet. Computer modeling is only as good as the person using the computer.  As you can see, the conclusions of the most recent NOAA study are questionable from a science viewpoint but very understandable as a politically motivated marketing tool for further infrastructure spending.

 

The Truman Doctrine: Why America Rushes to Defend and Loses? (Updated-New Info)

 ** Background:  Thirty years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed. Without regard for potential problems that might arise, World powers declared that each state would simply revert back to its original borders (pre 1922) and each would have a quickly formed but democratic government. The turmoil that has been a regular part of this region since that time (name changes, divisions and military actions) have largely been the result of people  pushing back against a one-and-done fix that was more about global politics than cultural identity.  Not all communities have embraced US style democracy.  Some, like portions of Crimea and Ukraine, have kept their connections with Russia.  If this conflict continues in the same way it is presently going. There seems to be hope that Ukraine and Russia will work out their differences without direct influence from the US and Europe.  Since the end of WWII, Europe, the United States and mostly the United Nations have failed to see that one issue is at the heart of these difficulties.  Russia is a country that is blocked from shipping lanes for at least half of every year.  The Soviet Union worked because it functioned as much as a trad alliance as a country.  Russia had access to warm water ports through Ukraine and Crimea.  The reorganization following the fall of the Soviet Union fail to take that into consideration and now Russia must fight not for geopolitical security but for financial security in the energy marketplace.

As Americans know from experience, keeping a border intact is not enough to keep peace.  If only our political systems viewed Americans as one group without separating them into fractured voting blocks that serve no one.  Ukraine will need to choose compromise or war.  The United States will need to do that same if it expects to break the cycle of ping-pong elections and a dysfunctional government******

ORIGINAL POSTING

A little history explains much about current events when one takes the time to consider it.  If there is any doubt, a look at President Joe Biden's reaction to Russian activities might appear as the ghost of the Cold War rather than current public sentiment.  For all the attempts to broker global peace, there is one factor that causes it to fail at every turn. From the collapse of the League of Nations following WWI to the limits of what the United Nations can now do in just such situations, as long as one country is left out of the discussion, there is no other option but threats and war. 

No different than picking teams for a children's ball game, alliances make it possible to ignore the needs of one country by declaring them unfit or unworthy in some way.  But how does the leader of a major World power not recognize this simple occurrence for what it is and diffuse the situation rather than alarm it.  For Biden, the trigger is likely a childhood heavily influenced by the Truman Doctrine, a significant piece in  US foreign policy meant to be a supportive partnership but instead creating division throughout the World.

How the Truman Doctrine Shaped American Foreign Policy

Within months of the end of WWII and before most Baby Boomers were even born, America's future as an ally to Europe and Defenders of Democracy was drafted and approved by the United States Congress.  Without future generations having a say in the matter, the Truman Doctrine became the foundation of US foreign policy in March of 1947 and still heavily impacts military operations today. Pledging to provide financial and other aid to any free country that finds itself in trouble, the Truman Doctrine quickly made the United States a valuable ally during uncertain times. 

 Even though the United Nations had been created to insure peace in the World, there were other post-war events that called for quick assistance.  When Europe could not provide the level of support needed in the years immediately following the war, the United Kingdom (UK) requested assistance from the US and the Truman Doctrine was the result.  

Unfortunately, what started as a predominately financial aid program shifted to a military one as the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1955-1975) became an ideological battle between Democracy and Communism. Coming of age during these periods of war, leaders such as George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Joe Biden would encourage the American citizen to fund massive military operations in the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq War as well a peace keeping missions around the World.  That Biden would end one war in August and be ready to enter another one less than a year later speaks to the influence of the Truman Doctrine on individuals who were impressionable in the late 1940s and 1950s. 

Honorable but Unsustainable Theology

For 76 million Baby Boomers, the concept behind a cooperative global community seemed honorable until they realized they would be the ones going to war, paying for the ever-increasing defense budgets and seeing their wealth eaten up by spiraling inflation and feel-good social programs. Had the protests which led to the end of the Vietnam offensiveness killed the economic imbalance associated with the Truman Doctrine, the United States might have achieved the equality based society that the the United Nations supported. But war is good for business, even if it is an ideological one. The Space Race, food aid to African nations, Olympic rivalries and exclusive trade agreements served the same purpose only played better in the press, even while spending millions in taxpayer dollars for little more than an image.  This kind of war could be turned into allies and strength but still ignored the needs of the nations considered undemocratic, backward or abusive. 

Ironically when Americans realized the never-ending costs of these efforts, those who had been shaped by this "Save-the-World" attitude turned their efforts to rescuing select groups within their own borders.  Not afraid of work, Baby Boomers created the largest workforce and tax base in American history. Taking two incomes to have the lifestyle of their parents, the government continued to collect FICA taxes only to siphon money out of these accounts for special programs and military preparedness.  Rather than pay down war debt and combat inflation, Congress championed every special cause and project it could fund. It paid farmers to sit idle. It designed expensive military equipment during peace-time. it opened its borders to millions of immigrants which kept wages low for working families. It protected its citizens by mandating massive health care, insurance and product safety measures which drained their bank accounts and it combated poverty by paying people to remain impoverished.  When that wasn't enough, the country went to war with little provocation but penalized embattled countries because they refused to march in lock-step with American ideals  

The one thing government did not do was protect the largest generation from being used and abused for no other purpose than to pay taxes and fund their endless string of social programs and agendas. The result has been a nation that cannot acknowledge that in the wake of the Truman Doctrine, all it did was rob the majority of its own citizens from a good and peaceful life.  

A Pattern That Must Change

For 75 years, both Republican and Democratic parties have focused their leadership, not on what is good for the average citizen, but for what raised the image of the US in the World.  Left with crumbling infrastructure, an orbit filled with space junk, imperfect healthcare, a compromise ecosystem and a wealth gap that is as large as some third world countries, will Biden's signature agenda be like those listed below and cause more problems than they solve. (See list below). 

Biden has a decision to make. He can be loyal to an outdated philosophy that has drained the wealth from the United States citizens or he can embrace an opportunity to open a public discussion of what needs to be fixed and how to fix it.  With the states rallying behind an Article V Convention of States, Biden can either be part of this movement or he can be trampled by it.  This is what will define his Presidency.  

Signature Agendas of Past Presidents - Did we need these measures?

1.  Truman - The Truman Doctrine - Separated Democratic nations from other forms of government
2. Dwight Eisenhower -  Began the Intrastate Highway System which contributes to the centralization of economic power in cities and which has compounded supply change issues during the Pandemic. Encourage economic growth through Federal spending paid for by heavy taxes for the wealthy. 
3. John F. Kennedy -  Created the Peace Corps reportedly on an impulse to provide a way for non-mlitary service to country. More or less defunk now. 
4. Lyndon Johnson - Civil right legislation but also Medicare and Medicaid, urban beautification and revitalization. Now takes up a substantial percentage of the federal budget. 
5. Richard Nixon - Environmental Protection Agency and the beginning of environmental clean up.  End of the Vietnam War. Resigned office due to political election scandal.  
6. Gerald Ford - Took over for Nixon.  Perhaps his wife's battle with addition and breast cancer was  significant but Ford serves only three years and was not elected in 1976. 
7. Jimmy Carter - Peace in the Middle East and Arms Limitation Agreements. Also sponsored conservation of energy requiring strick fuel efficiency measures and new vehicle guidelines. 
8. Ronald Reagan - large tax cut for the wealthy.  Believed in reduced size of government which was the first step to pushing responsibilities onto the states.  Became the platform for Republican doctrine for the last forty years. 
9. George H. W. Bush - Energy issues with Iraq in the Gulf War. Also assisted in the reunification of Germany at the end of the Cold War
10. Bill Clinton - Expansion of social programs and particularly healthcare.  Last President in favor of a balance budget amendment, was opposed to illegal immigration and had a budget surplus.  
11.  George W. Bush - 9/11 and the beginning of the Afghanistan War. Unregulated housing loan collapse of the Banking industry at the end of his tenure.  Revamping of the national curriculum which put great pressures on teachers to accommodate students with disabilities in a regular setting.  
12. Barrack Obama - The Great Recession package of stimulus and tax cuts. High number of individual foreclosures. Ramped up and forced healthcare coverage regardless of need.  Expanded climate regulations without proven science. 
13. Donald Trump - Tax cuts that  drove the stock market to an all time high. Rolled back regulations on a number of programs.  Dealt with beginning of Pandemic and supported a massive stimulus package, questionable cures and vaccines.  
14. Joe Biden - Hampered by continued pandemic difficulties. Promoting healthcare over prevention and mandates for vaccines which have made a handful of companies quite wealthy.  Large stimulus payments and deferred payments. Also proposing a large spending package which would continue the Truman Doctrine mentality.