Thursday, April 1, 2010

Destroying America with the EPA's Carbon Lies


By Alan Caruba

Lisa Jackson, Obama’s EPA director, has just announced the agency’s new auto regulations of gas mileage based on global warming. In addition, the agency asserts the right to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the Clean Air Act.

There is absolutely no scientific justification for this and, indeed, many observers believe the EPA lacks the legal authority regarding its stance on CO2.

There is NO need to limit greenhouse gas emissions because there is NO “global warming.”

Greenhouse gases are purported to be the primary cause of this fraud. The EPA, like a dozen other U.S. agencies, has been pushing the global warming fraud for decades. One more lie, even a whopper about CO2, is of little concern to the EPA at this point.

Beyond the issue of scientific fraud, there are the scientific facts that demonstrate that CO2 plays a miniscule role, if any, as regards the Earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide is less than one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere (386 parts per million).

There is, in fact, no greenhouse effect. The most active element of the atmosphere is the 95% of water vapor that forms a protective layer around the Earth.

The science involved is fairly simple. Clouds have a warming effect because, in order for water vapor to condense back into water droplets, the water molecules must first re-emit the energy they absorbed to become vapor. That latent heat causes the local environment to feel warmer. It is this constant interchange that determines whether wherever you’re at right now is warmer or cooler.

The public is rarely, if ever, told that meteorologists have NO idea why clouds act as they do. All they can do is track cloud activity via satellite images, but they can only accurately predict the weather at best for three to four days ahead. This is why, when you watch a televised weather forecast, they mostly just point to cloud systems.

The Earth’s oceans contain fifty times the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s biomass, oceans, near-surface rocks and soils contain 100,000 times the carbon in the atmosphere.

To declare CO2 toxic, the EPA is saying that all that natural CO2, plus the six pounds of carbon dioxide that every human exhale every day is a “pollutant.”

How can carbon dioxide be a pollutant when all life on Earth is dependent upon it?

CO2 is to vegetation what oxygen is to human and other animal life. Without CO2, all vegetation dies and then all animal life dies for lack of the nutrients provided by food crops.

The EPA will blame the generation of CO2 on energy use, but 97% of the Earth’s CO2 is produced by Nature!

Only about 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans via industrial and transport activity. This estimate, in fact, comes from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! The IPCC’s other alleged climate data is subject to serious challenge, but this is not. It falls into the category of common knowledge among climate scientists.

Environmentalists are insanely opposed to all energy use with the exception of bicycles, canoes, and walking. They particularly hate automobiles, but these are the same people, along with the EPA, that have insisted on the inclusion of ethanol, otherwise known as moonshine, in every gallon of gasoline. The immediate result is less mileage per gallon and the production of more CO2!

None of these facts is a secret yet, since 1989, the U.S. government has spent $79 billion in taxpayer’s money on “climate change” research. To suggest that the government, using the data generated, has any “control” over the climate is absurd.

The result of all that government funded research has been a public that has been subjected to the massive fraud called global warming. Weather data provided by NASA and NOAA, for example, has had to have been withdrawn due to errors.

Not only has the scientific community learned that the IPCC data was manipulated and that efforts were made to suppress data refuting global warming, but the Earth has irrefutably been in a cooling cycle for over a decade at this point.

The EPA regulatory control of auto mileage and CO2 emissions is a complete fraud and a contemptible lie. In doing so it has become a gangster agency that has abandoned any credibility.

Finally, the Cap-and-Trade Act awaiting a vote in the Senate is based on the global warming fraud and, if enacted, would impose massive taxation on all energy use. It must be stopped.

The EPA's latest move must be stopped.

The fate of the nation’s economy literally depends on this.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

19 comments:

Ronbo said...

Alan:

If the socialists are not run out of the American government in about a generation we are going to be back to horse transportation and candles.

Orwell has wrong.

The triumph of socialism will not mean an industrial base and three giant countries in control of the world, but rather a march back to the past and feudalism with tiny tribes fighting over water holes.

emily said...

Thank You Alan.

Alan Caruba said...

You're welcome, Emily.

Desertrat said...

It's a numbers game of need vs. supply for energy. Even if the Globular Wormers were correct, their ideas don't recongnize that folks gotta eat. To do that, they gotta have jobs and transportation. All that civilized stuff.

The present proposals and the targeted goals for CO2 reduction from man-made sources will reduce the standard of living, even for a lesser population...

'Rat

jbpeebles said...

I can't agree with all that's said here, but I do admit the carbon tax and other reactions will raise our cost of living. I don't think that our standard of living has to decline if we produce more of our energy domestically.
Right now we're importing over 60% of our petroleum. Obviously that's a lot of wealth leaving our shores, so going sustainable will be key in supporting our economy regardless of your position of warming.
A good deal of gas is used by cars, which is the reason they're a big target. The reaction to CO2 I admit is silly. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well, so what are we going to do, tax it?
There's another wrinkle to this: if the global warming is being caused by factors other than CO2, cutting and taxing CO2 won't stop the warming. One scientist attributes only 20-25% of global warming to man-made causes, so we're really in trouble even if we cut emissions. This isn't an excuse to ignore the problem (many do believe climate change is occurring) but certainly a reason to identify what's really going on, and factor out those things (cyclical, solar storms, etc.) about which we little humans can do nothing.

Alan Caruba said...

Good points, JB. Sometimes I think we're just a week or two away from taxing oxygen.

waterman27 said...

The entire hypothesis is baseless and comprises purely of convoluted nonsensical psuedoscience.

Want proof of this?

Go and research the physical characteristics of this trace gas, its weight, conductivity & specific heat.

Next compare these properties with water. The results will speak for themslves.

Here in the UK, I can see another year of deluges, caused ofcourse by the still quiet sun. Henrik Svensmark and his research into the CHILLING STARS confirms what many already know.

Do not forget that YOU are CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS!!!

Guy said...

Tax Oxygen? Brilliant!

Oh wait ... they already do. I pay sales tax on every bottle of it I buy ...

Alan Caruba said...

Thank you, Waterman...even if it turns out that I too am carbon-based.

And all this time I thought I was largely made of cream sherry and tasty biscuits! :-)

Poor England, first a deluge of snow and this to be followed by more floods. And I thought New Jersey had its drawbacks!

Ron H. said...

>"Right now we're importing over 60% of our petroleum. Obviously that's a lot of wealth leaving our shores...

I hear this a lot. Why do people think we are losing wealth when we import oil? We are in fact buying something with US dollars that we value MORE than the dollars.

Why is this never considered a problem when we import other items such as bananas, coffee, gallium, bauxite, or any other commodity? We buy a lot of Canola oil from our neighbors to the North, and no one complains of "a lot of wealth leaving our shores. We understand this as TRADE.

I mentioned bauxite because we import 100% of it. We have no domestic source. Gallium, a byproduct of aluminum production, is essential in the production of LEDs (light emitting diodes) and some lasers. In fact, many scarce metals are imported because we don't have a sufficient domestic supply.

No one seems concerned about "a lot of wealth leaving our shores" to buy these essential inputs.

When we buy imports with dollars, these dollars must eventually return to the US to pay for things we export, or to buy Treasury bills. No other country is simply collecting US dollars under a huge mattress. If they did, our money supply would shrink, and we would find prices dropping.

As for making our own oil reserves available for production, I wholeheartedly agree; but one reason we don't ALREADY do this is that it COSTS more than buying oil from other producers.

I realize I'm not providing references here, so feel free to show me where I'm wrong about this, but I don't believe it's possible to come anywhere close to being self-sufficient in oil even if we began drilling for every drop available domestically, so this is an unrealistic goal.

Guy Jones said...

if we read between the lines, it would appear that'THEY' want to kill off the plantlife of this planet, through stealth means. Which will kill off the food chain from the bottom up. Until we horrid Humans finally feel the squeeze, and then go to war over water or what ever. As I have said for years, CO2 is plant food and vegitation is good. Those so called scientists who are pushing for Climate related changes to our society will be kicking them selves when they are being mugged for their packed lunch...just like when they were at school!

Charles said...

« Only about 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by humans via industrial and transport activity »

« The Earth’s oceans contain fifty times the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s biomass, oceans, near-surface rocks and soils contain 100,000 times the carbon in the atmosphere. »

I need scientific research about those premise. Can anyone is able to link it to me?

Thank, and it is a good blog Alan!

Alan Caruba said...

There are many excellent, science-based websites that provide the information you're seeking.

I recommend you begin with:
www.nothingtodowithco2.com/AGW_presentation_ILMCD.pdf

Others include
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com,

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2010/02/75-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-global.html

Charles said...

Thank, but I finally find it on another site:

« Human production of 8 Gt C per year of CO2 is negligible as compared with the 40,000 Gt C residing in the oceans and biosphere. At ultimate equilibrium, human-produced CO2 will have an insignificant effect on the amounts in the various reservoirs. The rates of approach to equilibrium are, however, slow enough that human use creates a transient atmospheric increase. »

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Decarbonator said...

Nice april fool joke. Congrats

Too bad comments are cencored. But that's not communism.

Alan Caruba said...

Decarbnonator, you have had your say. Now go away.

Declaring carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is no April Food joke. It is an obscene lie.

turak said...

This information is a total surprise to me: I've swallowed the greenhouse gas effect for over 40 years.

I can tell you that the climate in Quebec hasbeen getting steadily warmer for 30 years... though the existence of the Athtabasca oil tar sands projects could be a large reason: that's an area of blackened land which equals two average-size american states. But what about the permafrost melting? and all the other scientific facts which have been published?

My question is: if the greenhouse effect is a lie: what about the hole in the ozone layer, is that man-made or is there some other explanation?

Alan Caruba said...

@turak
There is NO connection between the oil sands and the climate. Ozone holes are a natural phenomenon. And all the rest of the "Green" nonsense you cite should be assigned to the trash bin. A bit of effort on your part will reveal there is no scientific basis for "global warming" and a visit to any of the several websites listed on this blog will better inform and educate you.

TeZ said...

I still can't believe that "Climate Change Deceivers" are getting so much press. This is possibly one of, if not the biggest lie ever told (and we are at least told, believed) in history. The US has completely lost control of their government as has most of the world. The US & UK Governments are completely corrupt and ours is close to joining them. Everyone is fighting everyone else for oil. Banksters are using their political might to make the poor pay for the indiscretions of the rich, destroying the middle class. Its pure folly and it’s only going to get worse with crap legislation like "Carbon Tax" that will crush our economy for "zero world gain" Has the whole world gone mad?, where the fu^k have all the thinking people gone? We commit heinous atrocities against each other in all levels of society in the name of peace. In Libya we are killing the killers to stop the killing, but we are not just killing the killers. The Americans have a name for it, collateral damage. Gates says “we have more tools in our bag other than hammers” well if that’s so, let’s see them? We are living in a period of fear, seems that the more we advance, the more we fear. We fear losing "our stuff", the politicians fear losing their "stuff" to the point of guarding it like rabid dogs with only one thought in mind. They no longer think about the best interests of the nation. Sure they say it, but it’s not what we see and feel. Decay is a slow but sure thing as relentless as the tide. If we don’t do a little character maintenance along the way we will all slowly succumb to its unending barrage. We have been paying scant regard to what the right thing to do is. That’s got to change if we are to survive as a species. We don’t need a book to tell us that, we already know. It is almost inconceivable that after all this time and through all the technical things we've achieved as a species, we still don’t understand ourselves and cannot understand something as basic as even the concept of peace.....