Tag Archives: global warming

Good Idea, Bad Idea

Boken Light BulbThomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb has not just been replaced; it has been outlawed.  Rather than think our Government did this, lets consider the politicians who embodied the Government in 2009 did it.  Our form of government as defined in the US Constitution could not have done it, but the perverse eroded interpretation of that constitution has allowed ignorant at best, or possibly unscrupulous, politicians to do something quite stupid at best, or even dastardly.

Congress says it is attempting to save us from our own inanity, but they simply prove that they are the dim whits.  These spiraled little florescent bulbs are a very bad idea for the very reason it is supposed to be a good one, and more, much much more.

The one reason for the CFL is to save electricity, thus reduce the carbon emissions from power productions, (even if your electricity comes form a waterfall, windmill, nuclear power, etc.).  Sounds like a good idea.  After all we’ve used incandescent bulbs for a long time to save electricity and illuminate large offices, industry, shopping centers, etc. for many decades.  However most of these are contained in a fixture high above the area they service and are in little danger of breakage.  The problem with these bulbs whether they are in a familiar long tube or a twisted little bulb is that they contain mercury vapor.  Mercury is a dangerous “heavy metal” element that can be breathed in or absorbed through the skin or enter directly into the blood stream, (i.e being cut by the broken tube).  It persists in the body virtually for life.  The build up of such heavy metals causes bizarre health issues involving balance, sight, more debilitating diseases, and grotesque birth defects.   This is why even very minor amounts of mercury poisoning through seafood is avoided at great costs.

Industrial use of incandescent tubes is controlled through proper handling and disposal.  Even so, all too often the correct protection and or disposal is not adhered to, individuals are exposed and land fills are contaminated.  The effects of these exposures are too slight to detect at first and show up months or years after exposure, so symptoms are seldom related to the cause.  Now introducing these problematic bulbs into every home in the nation potentially exposes everyone to this seemingly minor hazard for which serious problems will not appear until years after it is too late to stop and nearly impossible to reverse.

Think of how many times you have broken a light bulb or been near one when it broke.  Now think of how each of those would have been another exposure to mercury poisoning.  Now consider that you are probably more careful than most Americans who don’t take the time to read an article about CFRs much less heed the warning labels on the package of CFL bulbs describing the OSHA approved method of cleaning up hazardous waste and containing it for proper disposal.  It seems our 111th Congress and our president, who passed a law outlawing incandescent bulbs in 2014, expect us to be exposed to more hazardous waist or properly clean them up.  The latter is not very probable.

Thus the problem of disposal of the bulbs themselves.  Are we going to bring them to a hazardous waste collection center centers and pay to get rid of them?  We’re supposed to do that with old batteries now but mostly we just toss them in the trash.  Let’s be real, until there is a Hazardous Waist truck that comes by once a month to pick up our dead batteries, burnt out CFL bulbs, and old computer items, we’re going to pollute landfills with them.  Think of the amount of mercury getting into the land and waterways.  Even fresh water fish could become mercury hazardous.  Drinking water may be threatened as well.  Soon we’ll pay for clean-up and extra collection processes through taxes.  Although it is a capital idea, why would we create more of a problem than we already have?  Does everyone recycle effectively now?

OK, but what about saving electricity, (the price of which is going to skyrocket if the current administration has it’s way)?  Saving is good for the user and for the environment right?  Yes, yes it is.  HOWEVER, these bulbs brag that they give off 60-watts of light for only 40-watts of power.  Newton’s Law of “Conservation of Matter and Energy” points out that this is a physical impossibility.  What it really means is that the bulb supposedly gives you 60 watts of light for what a 40-watt incandescent bulb consumes.  The problem with that deceptive boast is that a 60-watt incandescent bulb doesn’t use much more electricity than a 40-watt bulb.  On top of that, are they really as bright as an incandescent bulb of the same rating?  Put them side-by-side and you tell me.  Furthermore they need “warm-up” time, during which they give you even less light.  Given this, we’ll all be turning on more of these lights to get the same illumination.  Where is the savings to your pocket or the environment?

Oh yes, let’s not forget our economy?  The CFLs are made almost exclusively in China.  We used to make incandescent bulbs here in the US but since they have been outlawed, we don’t make them anymore.  We can’t make to CFL bulbs here because the handling of hazardous materials is so regulated that we can’t compete with the Chinese who don’t seem to prioritize the protection of their workers.  This is not a complaint against our safety standards.  It is a condemnation of the legislation forcing us to we buy something that harms humans in another nation while assassinating our own jobs here.

What’s the solution?  Information.

Why doesn’t everyone know the real story?  Somehow they know a phony story about global warming that hasn’t been happening for the last 11+ years.  The public only knows the stories they are fed through the “Lame Stream Media.”  Until the public demands the truth, we will always be told the lies “they want us to believe.  In this case it is all the trillions that will be made through the CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange), the money making side of the Cap & Trade law.  When we stop watching the media that feeds us such lies they will either change their tune or go out of business.  Networks get money from advertising, and advertisers won’t advertise on shows that are not watched.  Do your homework.  Select the networks that feed you the truth or don’t watch them, don’t hit on them, and don’t buy them.  Good idea?  Did a light bulb come on?  Was it incandescent or some twisted reality?

Then there are function CFLs can’t do such as work on dimmers or with timers or photocell switches, frequent switching, moist environments, near anything that vibrates, in enclosed & recessed fixtures, etc., etc.  They can and do interfere with sensitive electrical equipment, computers, TVs, etc..  Now the real kicker.  CFL bulbs don’t work in the “Easy-Bake-Oven.” How could Congress be so cruel?

 

 

ClimateGate Exposed by Internationally Famous Physicist

Al Gore

Al Gore

Al Gore’s Global Warming scam just took a right hook in the chin – again. This time the blow comes from internationally renowned Dr. Harold Lewis, 87, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Lewis just submitted his resignation from the American Physical Society to Dr. Curtis G. Callan Jr. of Princeton University, who serves currently as the President of the American Physical Society.

Dr. Lewis skewers the Global Warming movement for what it is – a giant scam. Dr. Lewis’ comments, sent to Callan on October 8, 2010, so utterly destroy the Al Gores of the world that his words have become newsworthy throughout the world. Here is his resignation letter; in it’s entirely, with one particular paragraph highlighted in bold for your edification:

Dr. Curtis G. Callan Jr.

Dr. Curtis G. Callan Jr. - President, American Physical Society

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists.

We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

  1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
  2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
  3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
  4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
  5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
  6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Anthony Watts, a career meteorologist and President of IntelliWeather, is also now publicly critical of Al Gore and the Global Warming scan. Watts and Lewis represent some of the first scientists and meteorologists now coming out publicly against the Global Warming scam. Watts, describing himself on his web site, says “As you can see most of my work is in weather technology such as weather stations, weather data processing systems, and weather graphics creation and display.  While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also.”

Watts then goes on to say, in a recent post, that “While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting. Indeed, not so quiet now. It looks like it is getting ugly inside with the public airing of the resignation of a very prominent member” who just happens to be Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis has also previously gone postal against the perpetrators of Climate Gate.

I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist…In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work. – Dr. Hal Lewis

The resignation of Dr. Lewis is just the latest salvo in the ClimateGate war. A group of prominent scientists has asked the American Physical Society to rescind its political statement in support of climate Change. The following letter was signed by Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton; Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara; Will Happer, Professor Physics, Princeton; Larry Could, Professor of Physics, Hartford; and Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil.

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled “The Climate Science isn’t Settled,” for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS [email protected], with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil.

The barrage continues. Dr. Richard Lindzen, a Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Member, Annapolis Center for Science and Economic Advisory Council; Contributing Expert, Cato Institute; and Contributing Expert to the George C. Marshall Institute and a member of the National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly spoken out against the purveyors of ClimateGate. Here are several of Dr. Lindzen’s prominent quotes on ClimateGate:

1 December, 2004

“It doesn’t even matter whether recent global mean temperatures are ‘record breakers’ or even whether current temperatures are ‘unprecedented.’ These are simply red herrings designed to obfuscate the fact that the change over the past century has been small. The fact that such claims are misleading or even false simply provides a temptation to discuss them and implicitly to attach importance to them. Remember, we are talking about tenths of a degree and all of you know intuitively that that isn’t very much.”
Source: “Alarm- Where Does It Come From?“, George C. Marshall Institute Website

12 April, 2006

“Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.”
Source: Lindzen op-ed, Wall Street Journal, 4/12/06]

21 April, 2007

Q: “On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, “How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?”
Lindzen: “I know. It’s straight out of Hitlerjugend.”
Source: “Relax, The Planet is Fine“, National Post (Canada), April 21, 2007

Pandora’s box has now been opened, as far as Al Gore is concerned. The science is indeed settled. ClimateGate is a scam. Instead of more studies on global warming, it is incumbent on governments far and wide, local and national, to open criminal investigations into the activities of those individuals responsible for perpetrating this globally-based scam.

Cap-and-Trade should also die a quick death. However, fully expect Barack Obama to continue to push for this ill-advised legislation. His concern is not scientific in nature. It is about politics and political control. Obama’s agenda includes Cap-and-Trade and the implementation of it through his Chicago Carbon Exchange.  However, since the U.S. Senate is expected to become more conservative after the 2010 midterm elections, Obama’s window of opportunity is rapidly dwindling. It may well be that the only chance Cap-and-Trade has is if it is pushed through the Senate during the lame-duck session. But even that is not guaranteed – especially after the news of Dr. Lewis’ resignation sinks in. Don’t underestimate the influence of Dr. Lewis’ resignation letter. It puts every member of the Senate, Republican or Democrat, on notice that they will be voting in favor of a criminal scam if they vote Yes. It literally puts those who vote “Yes” on record as an accessory to a crime. Dr. Lewis has done something for which the peoples of the world now owe him a favor. Thanks to Dr. Lewis, the scamsters have seen a shot across the bow. The next step is to sink that ship once and for all.

Harold “Hal” Lewis Biography

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

References

Global warming is “the Greatest Fraud in 60 Years”

Hefty Physicist: Global warming is “Pseudoscientific Fraud”

A Physicist points out the politics behind the climate scare

Hal Lewis blows lid off Global Warming Scam

CBO: Global Warming Policies Will Affect [Un]Employment

Reading through the CBO Brief intended to address how anti-global warming policies will negatively impact employment, I couldn’t help asking myself, “was it ‘bring your kid to work day'” at the CBO.  I was considering whether I had been spoofed into some kids blog or otherwise tricked into reading some overly-zealous conservative’s facebook page.  Nope, it’s authentic, but it reads like a high school book report.  I’ll summarize the major points:

  • “Coal mining will probably see the largest percentage decline in employment..”    Well, no duh.  The only thing this assessment is missing is the word ‘unexpectedly’ at the beginning of the quote.
  • “Employment in oil and gas extraction and natural gas utilities would also be expected to decline..”  Can’t put unexpectedly… they say it’s expected in the quote.. but great work feds… no one would have seen this coming without you
  • “..construction, and the industries that produce metals, nonmetallic mineral products (such as glass), chemicals, and transportation services..”  Interesting , but not totally new information
  • “Over time, employment would increase in industries and sectors (such as services) whose products are less emission-intensive to produce and result in fewer emissions when used.” – of course we have to protect the President… in other words, at some point, eventually, maybe, in the future.. we will benefit from this horror show policy

High school term paper made into a government brief – who woulda thunk?

Final Proof: Global Warming is Politics, Not Science

Leaders in the promotion of the idea that global warming is caused by man’s actions are taking a firm stance: use politics instead of science.  The Washington Time obtained damnifying emails from the leaders of the global warming science community that states:

..strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

I’m no expert on global warming science, but this doesn’t appear like anything I had ever learned about the scientific method.  Certainly, theories, experiments to prove or disprove, but seriously, I don’t remember back-page advertisements in a liberal newspaper being part of the scientific method.

The IPCC, and other leading global warming alarmist groups are resorting to political tactics because the science isn’t backing up their position.  This is definitely not the economy in which anyone would want to become unemployed and it seems this group is grasping at every lifeline to prevent being in the 16.8% “underemployed” number even Obama won’t talk about.

Opposition to the President: The Elephant in the Room

As the Senate health care bill nears a key vote, the noise is getting louder.  Americans are inundated with comments from the White House about how “everyone can agree” that a massive take over of health care by the government is the right thing.  We are told that there is a consensus that the earth is warming and the government can fix it, that we can spend our way out of a recession, that offshore drilling is unpopular, and that big government has only failed because it has not been made big enough.

The real trouble with all of this is that … not everyone agrees.  In fact, not only do most disagree, only 40% of Americans support the health care bill while over 56% oppose it according to a Rasmussen Reports poll.  It continues: 68% of Americans favor offshore drilling, only 34% believe that global warming is due to anything humans are doing, and more than half believe that more regulation of the financial system will be disastrous.

Public opinion is one thing, but President Obama and the radicalized-left are in denial.  Not only do they disbelieve that public opinion is against every one of there public policies, but they continue to ignore that the portion of the democrat party that is the most in-touch with the American people.  The part of the democrat party that is also fighting against the far-left agenda.

There are ultra-leftists like Senator Sheldon (D-R.I.) who believe that the only foes of the health care bill are birthers, militias and Aryan groups.  While those groups would probably oppose Obama’s policies, the real opposition to his policies is coming from his own party – none of whom are probably birthers, white-supremacists or members of a militia.  Joe Lieberman opposed the public option and the the expansion of Medicare.  Senator Nelson (D-NE) was opposed to the legislation unless clear restrictions against public money for abortion was put in – until … Harry Reid gave Nelson’s home state the money necessary to pay for all of its new Medicare recipients.  All of them covered directly by your tax dollars instead of Nebraskan’s as Medicaid is normally a State-funded program.

Many liberal Senators have been paid-off to keep quiet and toe-the-line, but oddly enough, the news hasn’t reported about the masses of G.O.P. Senators that have been paid to vote for the bill – perhaps because there aren’t any.  Chicago politics has been brought into D.C. to make the corrupt absolutely corrupt and they hope absolutely powerful.Obama for Socialism

Even though cap-and-trade doesn’t look like it will pass in the near-future, electric companies are reacting to the possibility that it might.  Levelling older electric generation plants to put in newer ones at costs that will certainly be passed on to their electric customers.  Refiners shutting down operations to avoid the huge expenses they believe are coming their way which will decrease supply and increase the price of refined petroleum (gasoline, tires, plastics… pretty much everything).

These moves are not and have never been about improving the condition of anyone’s life other than the bureaucratic elite.  Al Gore stand to make billion of dollars from the farcical and recently-debunked global warming movement, the members of Congress stand to benefit in new benefactors and a huge powerbase of newly-enslaved Americans, and the White House gets its Socialism.

The real question is what do the rest of Americans get?  Historic deficits for us and our children, inflationary pressures that will make the Carter years look like a walk in the park, changes in the job market that will keep 10% of Americans permanently underemployed and massive control of the lives of Americans by those that are supposed to answer to those citizens.

Recent Entries »