CO2 a dangerous gas?
The EPA has recently decided to enforce CO2 controls on the absurd theory that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. Chaudhari, a railroad engineer by training, is cheerleading delegates in Copenhagen to decide how much the “developed nations” (read: the US and the EU) must pay the undeveloped nations (read: China and India) to compensate them for their cost to reduce CO2. All over the world the leading broadcast networks are making believe that the science of man-made globe warming is “settled” and going on to speculate what the effects will be.
Not since the Church forced Galileo to recant has any scandal this large set back the cause of truth.
Is there any scientific consensus on man-made global warming? If you are like most politicians and you can’t do the science, how about looking at the opinions of the real experts? Look at the qualifications of these 150 signatories. How can anyone claim scientific consensus of man made global warming?
My friends are suing the EPA for exceeding their charter on the CO2 pronouncement. There will be a court challenge on a factual and scientific level. I believe the EPA will lose.
Corrupted Data - the Smoking Gun
In spite of the climategate emails, here are those that say the data, as shown in the IPCC report and the the infamous “hockey stick” curve publicized by Michael Mann, are still evidence of a problem we must address, no matter the cost. But the data behind that report, produced by the CRU group, has never been released and they apparently destroyed it. Of the three remaining data bases, two are derived from that CRU data and the third is at NASA, and is known as GISS.
Willis Eschenbach analyzed the temperature data in the GISS data base derived from the Southern Hemisphere, a critical part of the global warming theory. In order to understand the way that pieces of data were adjusted for any relocations of the stations, missing data, or badly calibrated instruments, he chose the raw data from Darwin, Australia. There were 5 stations, numbered Zero through Four. In order to determine if a station's data was reliable, the data from one station was cross-checked with up to three other stations, hopefully nearby, and the odd man was voted out. Some stations had incomplete data and other data from nearby stations were used to fill in. Al this is compatible with real-life data gathering . Been there, done that.
Willis then reverse-engineered the "adjustments" put into the GISS data from the actual raw data. This was necessary since the actual adjustment codes that went into the IPCC report have never been revealed. What he found was a smoking gun:
All the temperature increase included in the GISS data were caused by "adjustments". The raw data did not show any temperature increases at all. I include a reference to his study for your further research.
Now others are taking the time to examine the GISS data in comparison with the raw data. The same sort of smoking gun adjustments were found in data from Orland, California, Fairmont, California and Tennessee.
No objective observer can view these "adjustments" with anything but alarm. This isn't any kind of coincidence and it can't be an innocent difference of opinion about global warming.
It's time to get all the IPCC data out in the open and checked thoroughly.
Standard of Integrity, Standard of Care
My highest personal standard prevents me from supporting either the Waxman/Markey cap and trade bill in the US or the UN FCC treaty being discussed in Copenhagen. While they refer to a piece of bad science, their impact has nothing to do with correcting a climate problem and everything to do with creating massive government intervention.
The slightest doubt about the causes of global warming ought to be sufficient grounds to stop these two efforts dead in their tracks. That is the high standard. That is responsible behavior. Everything else is empty rhetoric.
Then we can launch the long-overdue climate satellite and try to recover some of the historical proxy data and get a real baseline and some current and reliable readings. Then we can look at all the previously ignored geo-engineering proposals and set up real incentives for alternative energy and conservation.
Those are the things a person of high standards would require. They make a considerable contrast to what is happening right now.
Extent of the Petroleum Scandal
You are beginning to see the the extent of the energy/greenie/cap&trade scandal. It is the largest fraud in human history, one which underpins many of the the seemingly illogical decisions our elected officials make, and our international policies as well.
My company first handled a small amount of Bakken oil in June of this year. It is a light, sweet oil comparable to Bonny Light, Saudi Light or Louisiana Sweet. No one has yet stepped up to build a pipeline for the delivery of this oil. It was shipped by rail - the same rail company that Warren Buffet just bought. The cost of developing this oil source would be a tiny fraction of the cost of the Waxman/Markey Cap & Trade bill. There is enough Bakken crude to power the USA for 2000 years.
The Bakken is not the only suppressed discovery. An enormous field was discovered a decade ago off Alaska's North Slope, on Gull Island, by Chevron. It was measured, capped and all but one or two who knew of it were silenced. This is the same Chevron who killed GM's original EV-1 electric car and who still controls the company that makes the best batteries, Ovonics. Part of the media message that disparaged North Slope oil was the accidental oil spill of the Exxon Valdez. Every time we hear of North Slope oil now we see dead, slimy seals.
If we had this oil, we would not be funding Wahabbi terrorists with oil money. We would not be paying oil money to Russian oligarchs. Chavez would be bankrupt and unable to pay off his political cronies for a comeback after he was voted out of office. GM would still be in business on its own hook. Our balance of payments would be positive, not negative. We would not be involved in Afghanistan with an insurgency fueled by Islamic oil and opium. Iran would not have the funds for a nuclear weapon. Etc.
Do you get it now?
The relationship between powerful forces in the USA and Saudi Arabia, through the medium of Aramco, is a conspiracy so deep and so large that it is difficult to comprehend.
Richard Nixon was faced with the rising costs of the escalating Vietnam conflict and runaway inflation. Aramco was already in existence, founded by the "seven sisters", the world's largest oil companies, in collaboration with the then struggling Saudi royal family. Henry Kissinger provided the following solution:
The USA would buy huge quantities of Saudi crude oil and maintain a high price for it, in order to make the Saudis wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Remember, crude once sold for under $2 a barrel. In exchange for this, the Saudis would buy bonds issued by the US Treasury, and that money would fund the US economy and the war in Vietnam. So the taxpayer's dollar was circulated to the mideast and then back to the US Treasury. Among the various necessary "adjustments" were:
- Increasing the tax rates on US citizens and corporations partly by allowing inflation to raise incomes into the higher regions of the tax rate schedule
- Increasing both oil usage and gasoline taxes. Note how little incentive there was in 1970's for fuel efficient cars. Auto sales boomed, roads were built, and alternative energy was quashed.
- The dollar was allowed to rise against other currencies to keep the dollar price of oil high. The Fed controlled interest rates and the rate of inflation to control the value of the dollar.
- In order to keep the "deal" in operation, the Saudi royal family had to be protected. When bin Laden became a threat to the Saudi family, he was pursued, but never eliminated because that made the USA essential to the royal family. US forces "failed" to pursue and trap bin Laden at least three times.
The Saudi royal family is observant of the strict Wahabbi traditions only in the public eye. I have heard that the Royals like a good Scotch whiskey, and their behavior in Switzerland and London is hardly traditional. However, they remain vulnerable to Islamic radicals and, being rich and Saudi, they prefer to buy them off rather than to be on the wrong side of a jihad. The royals are constantly worried about maintaining their ruling position. I am informed by a Saudi security agent on that score.
Oil prices are maintained by a mechanism here in the USA where futures are traded on an exchange and the major buyers and sellers are Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, and Citi. The volume of trades on these exchanges exceeds actual world oil production by a factor of ten. How can this be? Many trades are "round trip" trades, where a single party both buys and sells the same lot of oil, affecting the market price but not taking delivery of any product. Very little real product changes hands. This is also part of the "deal". These companies make money on the trading fees, not just the speculation on price changes. They are not hurting. They get sweetheart deals on oil lots as additional compensation. They manage to raise the price of crude far above it's real value. Propaganda about "peak oil" and "global warming" do the rest.
I don't know how much money has been moved around and how much has been extracted from the US economy by these arrangements. I has to be in the tens of trillions. The flow of money from these deals is such a huge part of the banking reserves for every large bank, that they would collapse if it was withdrawn.
No wonder Obama bows to King Faisal.
Carbon Legislation and the Treaty
The duty of responsible government is to document problems, research alternative solutions, and implement the best of those. There is a massive failure of all three principles in the current Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade bill.
First, the US Cap & Trade legislation assumes an anthropomorphic warming effect due to CO2 before any agency is set up to monitor or take fair measurements, and the best of existing evidence is ignored. The legislation sets CO2 goals that have no scientific basis, and then mandates onerous taxes to force some kind of compliance. None of the alternatives, such as geo-engineering or Manhattan-project efforts for alternative energy are even contemplated. Nuclear energy, an obvious solution to CO2 emission, is disfavored.
The bill creates a new currency, the carbon credit, which can be turned into dollars at a variable rate based on legislated escalations, not results or real value. This new currency is inflationary and unregulated by any fiscal agency. At the beginning of the enactment period, this currency is handed out to "deserving" industries in a highly political manner, effectively bribing supporters and generating campaign contributions from those who can pay for favors. Acceptance of these widespread credits by the Government gives them instant value as a form of currency. Winning these handouts is a major lobbying effort, underway right now.
Fact: Goldman Sachs owns 10% of the carbon exchange which will trade carbon credits world-wide. This is a $6 trillion market created out of fiat fake currency and supported on the backs of consumers.
The handouts weaken the effect of the CO2 reduction to the point where it is absurd to think there will be anymeasurable effect at all. There will be no global effort, so CO2 reduction by the USA will simply mean that emitting industries that cannot pass on their carbon costs to consumers will simply relocate elsewhere. Since China and India will not pass such a law, emitting industries will go there. That will weaken the American economy and cost jobs, not create them.
The main effect of the bill appears to be to raise another tax and to transfer power over a vast segment of industry to the Federal Government and the politicians who control the handouts. The public will pay with higher costs on necessary things like heat and electricity, higher costs on everything that is made with energy as a major input, such as plastics, steel and cement, and pay again through a net loss of jobs. This cost will be about $1.6 trillion.
A few supporters of Cap & Trade tout the bill as a way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This would be a worthy goal but oil is not running out.
Proven reserves can be legally claimed only by drilling a hole and having a geologist certify the findings. The oil majors would rather leave the oil in the ground than drill. It costs nothing to leave it there and it will appreciate in value if it is kept scarce.
At the same time, they are spending millions on 3D seismic surveys, which are so good they are like an underground X-ray of the oil pools. A map of surveyed but unproven reserves shows significant oil fields in almost every country in the globe, and the USA is the richest of them all.
We have more than enough in the US to get rid of suppliers in inimical countries. We don't seem to want to advertise or drill for that oil. I cite Bakken reserves, Gull Island, Alaska, and the Athabasca tar sands. All of these are cheaper sources of energy than wind. They will certainly serve us until we have real substitutes for the convenient, compact, powerful liquid energy of petroleum. However, creating an artificial scarcity in the commodity that provides 75% of all the mechanical power on Earth makes the unproven reserves even more valuable. The oil majors KNOW that cap & trade will not work, they KNOW they can pass on any extra costs to consumers and they KNOW they are going to make more $trillions on the unproven reserves when they finally decide to tap them.
That is a steep price for a non-existent benefit. Foisting this bill on the USA goes well beyond hypocrisy into malfeasance and treason.