Green What?

There was more in the news last night supporting the Green Monster initiative, which the Democrats summarily voted down. It is a spin-off of the Global Climate Change hoax.

First they talked about the Global Warming crisis, but after they found no evidence of a change in global warming, they morphed into calling it "Global Climate Change."

Since the last Ice Age (which took place after Noah's Flood), there has been a warming trend. The glaciers which extended down into central Indiana began to melt and recede. This had nothing to do with human activity. Now, the glaciers have receded into northern climates, into mountains where it is cold all year around. The rate of warming has remained almost constant and the glaciers at lower altitudes continue to melt. The ones at high altitude don't.

The biggest error made by the media is confusing weather with climate. They are not the same thing,. Weather patterns are constantly shifting, and go through periodic cycles. There is not any evidence that human activity affects weather except it is warmer over cities where the sun heats up all that pavement.

Anecdotal comments like "man it is hotter today than it's ever been" are not related to global climate. Actually, 2018 was a cooler year, and only a few places set records for high temperatures, while many reached record lows. We are moving from a warm cycle to a cool cycle like we had in the 1980s.

The second big error is confusing Global Climate with pollution, or worse yet with litter. While pollution and litter are bad things that need to be stopped, they are not the main source of climate change and warming, the Sun is.

The idea that Carbon Dioxide is causing environmental warming has been proven wrong. Carbon Monoxide is a toxic gas that is formed under conditions of incomplete combustion. It is not a "Greenhouse Gas." In fact, it is so chemically reactive that it does not remain long in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide, on the other hand, is not toxic and is essential to human and plant life. Humans breathe in air and puff out carbon dioxide. Plants take up carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. This balance was established by God. Humans cannot live on pure oxygen, they need a mixture of gasses to live. In areas of depleted carbon dioxide, plants do not thrive. In areas of increased carbon dioxide, plants flourish.

The "carbon" scam was created by politicians who perceived they could make money by selling "Carbon Credits." Politicians continue to promote the carbon scam because they invested in companies that would benefit.

The truth is that modern power generating plants in western nations are low in pollution - they have scrubbers in the stacks that remove most of the pollution. Nuclear power plants do not give off any toxic gases. Third world countries continue to pollute and are not doing anything to stop it.

This brings us to the third big mitigating factor in climate - the oceans. About 70% of the earth is covered by water. Aquatic plants produce most of the oxygen in the Earth's ecosystem. Yes, grass, trees and the Rain Forest contribute, but it is small compared to the ocean.

However, the ocean mitigates temperatures. It is a big heat sink and takes up heat when it is hot and gives it up when it is cold. The best way to reduce global warming would be to increase the amount of ocean.

Now the initiatives propose spending an enormous amount of money that we do not have to accomplish many useless things:

1. they want to prevent carbon dioxide production. This would cause plants to diminish, resulting in crop reductions, raising the price of food.

2. They want to destroy the current power generating capability of the country and replace it with inefficient costly wind and solar. Wind energy has a number of problems not the least of which is that it doesn't work when the wind is too low, or too high. It also makes noise, and kills a lot of birds.

Like wind, solar produces no power at night, when the demand is highest. It also takes up huge parcels of land, which cannot be used for crops.

Because wind and solar produce power when it is not needed, we would have to build huge power storage facilities most likely based on lead/acid storage batteries. There are few facilities that reclaim and remanufacture batteries because nobody wants to make the investment in dealing with toxic lead and corrosive sulphuric acid.

Nuclear is the best solution for power generation, but they don't want to talk about that.

While the initiative would produce many jobs doing all these crazy things, along with the government bureaucracy to support it, there would be a net loss of jobs from all the business that would be lost from shutting down auto plants, power plants, etc.

 

3. Expected cost of this program is 100 trillion dollars, which means taxpayers need to cough up something like $65,000 each. The real cost comes to poor people who will suffer because of the huge increases in food and energy costs. Rich people can afford to pay more for food and energy, but poor people cannot. The poor would also suffer from the loss of beneficial programs that would be shut down to help cover the expence of the initiative (a whole bureaucratic infrastucture with buildings and employees).

These programs are promoted by politicians who have invested in companies that stand to make billions of dollars.

The expected benefit from this program is about one degree reduction in global temperature. Most people don't notice a one degree temperature difference.

To further enhance the pollution elimination agenda, there are proposals to eliminate aircraft, internal combustion engines, farm animals and some other absurd ideas, including some for which there is no existing technology to replace it.

To support this debacle, it is often stated that "most scientists agree" This is just not true. Many scientists have no expertise in climatology, and can't speak to the subject with authority. Others have skin in the game, and are biased. Many just don't buy the logic of spending such huge amounts of money regardless of the benefit. We need a balanced budget more.

although I am a retired scientist (Chemist), I do not claim to be an expert on climate science. I am a pilot, which provides some training in meteorology. I am writing what I have learned by reading.

James H. Houchens