fatter_disasterSupposedly, world leaders are meeting in London to work on solutions for man-made climate change.  What many of them are doing in reality is trying to perpetuate a hoax. Check out Representative Lamar Smith article in the Washington Times.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the nation’s leading collector of climate data. Every day, NOAA analyzes vast amounts of data to predict changes to our climate, weather, oceans and coasts. The agency also publishes monthly temperature averages across the nation and compares those numbers to historical temperature records.

As the nation’s self-proclaimed authority on “environmental intelligence,” NOAA should be held to the highest scientific standards. This means their conclusions should be objective, independent of political consideration and based on all available sources of information.

NOAA’s top official, Kathryn Sullivan, has described the agency’s role as providing “timely, reliably, and actionable information — based on sound science — every day to millions of Americans.”

In testimony before the House Science Committee, NOAA’s deputy administrator, Manson Brown, made similar remarks, noting the importance of satellite data. He said that NOAA’s ability “to deliver environmental intelligence starts with keeping the pulse of the planet, especially the atmosphere and the ocean, and this is the central capability where space-based assets come into play.” So why does NOAA leave out satellite data when it releases climate projections?

NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.

Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. This fact is well documented, but has been embarrassing for an administration determined to push through costly environmental regulations. (continued here)

When the evidence against it is so obvious, the fact so many believe in “climate change” is proof our society is unraveling.


debateKeith DeHavelle and tildeb are having a raging debate over Global Warming at this post: THE CARBON CYCLE AND LeChatelier’s Principle. Their comments include numerous and informative links. So if you are undecided about Global Warming, their comments are worth reading and their references (links) worth checking out.

Note I don’t consider myself neutral. I think the science is on ‘s side, and  states his position on this hot topic calmly and carefully. On the other hand, at the same time  states his position he condemns what he considers ‘s dishonesty with an almost religious fervor. Such a character assault is, unfortunately, in line with the position that the “fact” of Global Warming is undeniable. Supposedly, the science is settled, and only greedy corporate fat cats — people who want to make money at any cost — are confusing the public.

As ‘s and ‘s back and forth demonstrate, the debate over Global Warming is not over. Hence ‘s and ‘s comments are worth reading, and I thank both men for sharing their knowledge.

THE CARBON CYCLE AND LeChatelier’s Principle

Here is an incomplete version of the carbon cycle.

What does the video skip over? A type of rock. Limestone. What is limestone?

Limestone is a sedimentary rock composed primarily of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the form of the mineral calcite. It most commonly forms in clear, warm, shallow marine waters. It is usually an organic sedimentary rock that forms from the accumulation of shell, coral, algal and fecal debris. It can also be a chemical sedimentary rock formed by the precipitation of calcium carbonate from lake or ocean water.

How are carbonate rocks formed?

1. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by dissolving in water and forming carbonic acid

CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

2. Carbonic acid is used to weather rocks, yielding bicarbonate ions, other ions, and clays

H2CO3 + H2O + silicate minerals -> HCO3 + cations (Ca++, Fe++, Na+, etc.) + clays

3. Calcium carbonate is precipitated from calcium and bicarbonate ions in seawater by marine organisms like coral

Ca++ + 2HCO3 -> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O

the carbon is now stored on the seafloor in layers of limestone. (from here)

What is the point? When we listen to the environmentalists, we get the impression that once we burn fossil fuels the CO2 that results is stuck in the atmosphere. That is not true. Natural processes already exist for removing CO2 from the atmosphere. What should concern us is these three problems:

  • How fast can the oceans remove CO2 from the atmosphere? That is, do we have the capacity to upset the earth’s CO2 balance sufficiently to cause harm? To answer that question, we need to consider Le Chatelier’s PrincipleLe Chatelier’s Principle can be stated as follows:

    A change in one of the variables that describe a system at equilibrium produces a shift in the position of the equilibrium that counteracts the effect of this change.

    What does that mean with respect to burning fossil fuels? Because we produce more CO2, the oceans and other carbon sinks (like green plants) absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere.

    Because of the role of CO2 in climate, feedbacks in the carbon cycle act to maintain global temperatures within certain bounds so that the climate never gets too hot or too cold to support life on Earth. The process is a large-scale example of LeChatelier’s Principle. This chemical principle states that if a reaction at equilibrium is perturbed by the addition or removal of a product or reactant, the reaction will adjust so as to attempt to bring that chemical species back to its original concentration. For example, as carbonic acid is removed from solution by weathering of rocks, the reaction will adjust by producing more carbonic acid. And since the dissolved CO2 is in equilibrium with atmospheric CO2, more CO2 is removed from the atmosphere to replace that removed from solution by weathering. (from here)

    Thus, the issue is the responsiveness of the processes that maintain the CO2 in the atmosphere at the desired equilibrium. Since we are just beginning to understand those processes, we don’t exactly know how responsive those processes might be. All we can say is that so far the doomsayers are exaggerating.  Burning fossil fuels doesn’t seem to have much effect on the world’s climate.

  • How do we remove the substances from fossil fuels that do form pollutants when burned? Smog is what results when we fail in our efforts to clean up what comes out of a car’s tailpipe. Since coal contains substances like sulfur and mercury, burning it can be problematic. Sulfur forms a highly corrosive acid. Mercury poisoning is called the mad hatter’s disease.
  • What do we use for fuel when fossil fuels become to costly to get out the ground? Currently, we are still finding less expensive ways to extract fossil fuels from the earth. Thus, we are using fossil fuels from sources that at one time would have been considered too expensive to use. Thus, fossil fuels remain inexpensive. Can that situation last forever? No.

How do we decide what we should do? We must remember that we make decisions based upon our understanding of the information available to us. Currently, our government provides most of our educational instruction, and our government also provides most of the information we have with respect to Global Warming. Is that a good situation? Of course not.

There is no such thing as a perfectly objective person. So there is no such thing as a perfectly objective teacher or scientist. Therefore, if we want to make an objective decision, we must consider information from multiple sources, that is, information on the same subject that comes from different people with different biases. We need a marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, because politicians run both our education system and fund most of the research on Global Warming, when it comes to this subject we do not have a marketplace of ideas. What we have is a government-run monopoly that presents only one point-of-view.

Other References


war between AmericansAmericans have fought one another in two civil wars. That first civil war we now call the American Revolution. Why did so many of the colonists revolt against the mother country? To determine the causes, we need only read the Declaration of Independence. The American colonists were trying to throw off an odious tyranny.

Our second civil war goes by the name “civil war,” The American Civil War. We still argue over the causes of this war, but plainly the enslavement of blacks of African descent had something to do with it. Northern abolitionists wanted an end to the practice of slavery. Southerners wanted to spread the practice of slavery. Therefore, when Abraham Lincoln, the leader of a new political party opposed to slavery, became president, southern slave-owning states violently seceded from the Union.

Could it happen again? Could we have another civil war? The answer is “yes.” So long as the United States exists, there is a chance we will experience an irresolvable conflict that leads to war. Although we may look back at the issue of slavery and wonder why Southerners would not free their slaves, the plain fact is that the South fought with dogged determination to keep blacks in bondage. Even though they might have increased the number of their soldiers by offering enslaved blacks their freedom in return for service in the Confederate Army, the South would not do so. Some blacks served in the Confederate Army, but few had a role in direct combat. Official policy never supported the use of black soldiers in the Confederate Army.

However, blacks did serve in the Union Army (see Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War). Some were even awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

So what would the next American civil war be about? Since we cannot know for certain when or whether this war will be fought, we can only guess. How can we guess? What if we went to war with each other in the near future? What issues divide us today?

  • Abortion: Some people consider what they do with “their body” their right. Many of these even insist that they have the “right” to use government funds to pay for their abortions. Others see the rights of the unborn as far more important, and they are horrified by the prospect of being forced to pay for the “right” of other people to have an abortion. Thus, “Pro-Choice” advocates would impose their beliefs upon those who believe in Life.
  • Unconstitutional Taxation and Spending: Look at the Constitution. Then look at the Federal Budget. Don’t we have numerous large Federal programs unmentioned by the Constitution. Yet what was one of the major arguments for seceding from the United Kingdom? Was it not taxation without representation? Today our government officials routinely take money from taxpayers and give that money away to buy votes. In fact, the cost of government seems increasingly out of control. Thus, taxpayers are represented, but not in a meaningful way.
  • Secular Public Schools: Although they are suppose to be run by local and state governments, our nation’s schools have acquired many of the characteristics of a nationalized system. That includes our universities as well as K-12 education. And as the Federal role has increased, government has inexorably secularized what is taught in our nation’s schools. What the schools teach children too often conflicts with what their parents believe. Instead of being taught Christian values, government teachers preach multiculturalism, environmentalism, liberalism, humanism, socialism, and so forth. Thus, government interferes with the right of parents to educate their children in their own beliefs.
  • Immigration: According to Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science by Henry Wheaton:

    A sovereign state is generally defined to be any nation or people, whatever may be the form of its internal constitution, which governs itself independently of foreign powers.

    Yet even children can swarm across our borders, and our dubious leaders will ensure these illegal aliens receive the “free” benefits of our welfare state. Thus, because we will not protect ourselves from even the weakest attempts at invasion, we risk national sovereignty.

  • Abuse Of The Powers Of Government Agencies: The power of Federal Government has grown beyond what was originally conceived in the Constitution. Here are a couple of examples.
    • At this point there is little doubt that during the last presidential campaign, leaders of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) used their organization’s powers to stifle Conservative organizations.
    • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), using Global Warming as an excuse, is being used to destroy the coal industry. Yet, no new legislation has been passed to justify this, and the legislation Congress has passed never envisioned carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

    Thus, because government leaders have so blatantly abused their authority, we risk both our freedom and our prosperity.

  • Dishonorable Judges: Our nation’s courts no longer adhere to what is plainly stated in the law.  Our judges have weirdly decided: (1) taxpayers must pay for the education of illegal immigrant children, (2) states must “marry” same-sex couples, (3) government can force citizens to buy health insurance, and so forth. Thus, because the meaning of the Law can no longer be discerned from what is actually stated in writing, we risk chaos and tyranny.
  • Dishonorable Elected Officials: When elected to executive positions, our officials no longer believe themselves obligated to either enforce the Law or adhere to the letter of the Law. This All-Star Panel: Has President Obama abused his authority? explains the problem. President Obama is essentially rewriting laws, threatening to combine legislative with executive authority. Thus, because the combination of executive power with legislative power is so easily abused, we risk tyranny.

What is the peaceful solution for these issues, one that might avoid a civil war? Because the United States is suppose to be a federation, we still have three identifiable levels of government: federal, state, and local. In the past, we exercised most of the power of government at the state and local level. Therefore, if the people of a city, county, or state were sufficiently unhappy with their government, they could leave and go where they could find a government more to their liking. Unfortunately, Federal Power has grown so immense we can no longer vote with our feet. In fact, we now have cause to wonder whether We The People have a government or the Federal Government has a people, and that should cause all of us to consider what we need to do to fix this problem.