Re: OT: An expensive solution to a non-problem

On Tue, 5 May 2009 21:16:48 -0400, the infamous "Phil Kangas"
<pkangas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> scrawled the following:

Do you believe in man-made global warming?

Newp! Kudos to Karl and Phil.

(no snippage, as this needs to be heard again and again)


From the TV6 website, www.uppermichiganssource.com
May 5, 2009: An expensive solution to a non-problem

By Karl Bohnak
Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.

You know that "Global Warming" (warming of the earth caused
primarily by mankind's emission of carbon from the burning
of fossil fuels) is one of my pet peeves. The evidence
shows we have warmed-about 0.7 degrees C the last century.
This is significant, but not cause for alarm. In the past,
long before humans were burning large amounts of fossil
fuels, there were even more dramatic rises in temperature.
The main point I want to get across is that just because the
earth has warmed, doesn't mean humans were the primary cause
of that warming. Don't be duped. Melting ice caps, milder
winters and polar bears swimming in open water are not
evidence of human-induced global warming.
For me, this issue has gone beyond a background irritation.
There is legislation before the U.S. Congress that would
fight "climate change (the term used to cover any effect
that doesn't appear to be due to warming)" that would impose
a "cap and trade" scheme on industries and businesses that
emit carbon dioxide (CO2). This means virtually every
business and industry would have to participate-they all use
energy and most energy in this country is carbon-based.
Businesses would have to buy these credits for the right to
emit CO2. Guess who will pay for it? Me and you-the
consumer, and that's why this has gone beyond annoyance for
me.

I have written Congressman Bart Stupak about my concerns on
this proposed legislation:

Congressman Stupak:

I would like to commend you on your efforts to protect Lake
Superior. You are a champion of one of the nation's most
precious resources. That being said, I urge you to reject a
bill that's being touted as a piece of legislation that will
help protect our environment for future generations--the
Waxman-Markey Energy and Climate Bill.

For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about
the issue of "global warming." Declaring skepticism labeled
you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After
former VP Gore's movie hit the big screen, I could remain
silent no more. "An Inconvenient Truth" was filled with so
many gross distortions and outright scientific
misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak
out.

My school presentations now center on global warming and
climate change. In them, I first state a fact--that CO2 is
NOT a pollutant, but a life-giving, naturally occurring
element in our atmosphere. I then show how small the human
contribution to atmospheric CO2 really is compared to ocean
out-gassing, etc. On the theme of small contribution, I
then explain how water vapor is by far (>95%) the most
dominant greenhouse gas. The bottom line is that the
burning of fossil fuels contributes around 4% to a gas that
is just 3% of the total volume of greenhouse gases.

I also show how the modest warming we've experienced over
the past century is NOT alarming or out of the ordinary and
how the cycles of warming and cooling oceans (which are
relatively recent discoveries) correlate quite well with the
ups and downs of global temperature over the last century.
Another element I focus on is the sun. The IPCC report
states that solar fluctuations in the climate system are not
as important as rising levels of the trace gas CO2. The
graphs and charts I show, prepared by eminent meteorologists
and astrophysicists, call that assertion into question.

The fact is these natural fluctuations are all pointing
toward global cooling over the next few decades. The
Pacific Ocean has entered its cool phase (and global
temperatures have leveled off and even declined some), while
the Atlantic is beginning to cool after reaching its
warm-cycle peak around 2005. The sun is in a deep slumber
that has confounded most astronomers. These big atmospheric
players are all pointing toward sustained cooling despite
rising CO2 levels.

CO2 is not a pollutant and it's not a problem. The problem
is rent-seeking corporations looking to cash in on cap and
trade and low-output, high-cost alternative energy. As your
Michigan House colleague Congressman Dingell says "cap and
trade is a tax, and it's a great big one." This is not the
time to raise energy prices, which is what this bill will
surely do. I believe the majority of your constituents will
suffer adversely if this legislation is passed.

There are serious environmental problems that we can do
something about. From what I understand, there are hundreds
of Super Fund toxic dumps that are not being cleaned up.
These dumps represent a real threat to human well-being.
Carbon Dioxide is an environmental "boogey man."

Please do the right thing and vote "no" on this bill.

Sincerely,

Karl Bohnak

Chief Meteorologist

WLUC-TV



I wrote the above over this past weekend and received a
response on Monday:

May 4, 2009

Mr Karl Bohnak

Negaunee, Michigan 49866

Dear Mr Bohnak:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the American Clean
Energy and Security Act (ACES), a discussion draft of energy
and climate change legislation proposed by Chairman Henry
Waxman and Chairman Ed Markey. ACES is the basis for
discussions amongst the House Energy and Commerce Committee
members. I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and
have been an active participant in the discussions. I
appreciate hearing from you concerning this important issue.

Let me be clear, I believe we need legislation to combat
global warming caused by human activities. According to
scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the five hottest years on record have
all occurred in the past 10 years, with 2005 breaking the
record for the hottest year since 1895. An overwhelming
majority of scientists agree that carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases are causing this unusual warming of our
planet.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
finalized its most comprehensive report yet. The report
concluded that global warming is caused by human actions,
and if nothing is done to curb our greenhouse gas emissions,
global temperatures could increase, causing the melting of
polar ice caps, significant rise in sea levels, untold
impacts on global water supplies, agriculture production,
and more intense natural disasters. Since that report, the
evidence has become more apparent and the predictions more
dire.

Congress needs to move beyond the debate over whether global
warming exists. With that said, Chairman Waxman and
Chairman Markey's draft legislation needs significant
improvement. As I work on this proposed legislation, my
priority is to protect existing Northern Michigan jobs from
being lost due to higher energy prices, create new jobs
through developing alternative energy technologies in
Northern Michigan, and make sure that unreasonable costs are
not passed on to consumers.

One change I am working to include is defining "renewable
biomass" to incorporate timber resources currently off
limits in the Waxman/Markey draft. We have a large forest
industry that could play a vital role in lowering greenhouse
gas emissions, while benefiting the economy of Northern
Michigan. As written in the Waxman/Markey draft, timber
from federal lands is excluded from the bill as an eligible
fuel source for renewable energy projects. Fuel stock
eligibility should be based on proper sustainability and
healthy forest practices, not excluded for arbitrary reason.

I am also working to include a "cash for clunkers" program
that allows individuals to turn in their older, inefficient
vehicles and receive a federal rebate toward purchasing a
new, fuel-efficient vehicle. This will reduce our country's
oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as
give a boost to our domestic auto industry.

I believe we can responsibly reduce harmful emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause global
warming and grow our economy. Congress has previously
provided tax credits and other incentives to promote the
production and use of clean coal technology, as well as
wind, solar, geothermal, ethanol, and other biofuels. In
addition, Congress has also worked to promote energy
efficient businesses and homes. The increased use of cleaner
burning fuels and improved efficiency will help energy users
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. There are many
provisions within the draft legislation that support these
areas. There are other areas, such as nuclear power, that
must be addressed more thoroughly. I will work in Congress
to further promote alternative fuels and programs, help
improve energy efficiency, and protect our global climate.

The Waxman/Markey draft establishes a carbon dioxide
cap-and-trade system, but leaves out how the carbon credits,
on which the system is based, will be allocated. The impact
of cap-and-trade on utilities, businesses and households
will depend on whether allocations are distributed by the
EPA, or are sold in an auction. My priority is to create a
system that doesn't put energy intensive domestic
industries, such as iron ore mining, steel, concrete and
paper production, at a competitive disadvantage to their
foreign counterparts and ensure you are protected from
unreasonable energy price increases.

The current draft proposed by Chairman Waxman and Chairman
Markey will serve as a starting point for what is expected
to be a thorough legislative process. The Energy and
Commerce Committee will consider climate change legislation
this May, and I will offer amendments and suggest changes to
the bill throughout this process. In addition, because this
is a global problem, I believe that Congress and the
Administration must engage the international community to
promote greenhouse gas reduction in the United States and
abroad.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns. Please feel free
to contact me again with issues that concern you in the
future.


Sincerely,

BART STUPAK
Member of Congress



I then responded to the congressman with this:



Dear Congressman Stupak:

I applaud your promotion of timber biomass and especially
clean coal. We can now burn coal while releasing only water
and carbon dioxide, gases which are harmless, naturally
occurring elements in our atmosphere.

It is true we have warmed, but it has NOT been proven that
the warming is primarily because of anthropogenic activity.

Also, the statistics you are given on the warmest years is
from GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies). It has
been shown by independent statisticians
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878 that 1934 was the
warmest year, followed by 1998. It has also been shown that
most of the data that goes into the GISS record is from
thermometers that have citing problems
http://www.surfacestations.org/. The thermometers are
located in areas that have become heavily urbanized. This
urbanization has resulted in a warm bias across the board
both here and in foreign countries.

Also, the IPCC is a political organization whose main report
is written by bureaucrats and NOT scientists. The summary
for policy makers is written with a pre-conceived notion
(man's activities are causing warming) and then data from
IPCC-supported scientists' work is probed to find data
supporting the summary's conclusion. Climate science has
been politicized and dissenting views are being suppressed
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220.

I have posted a few graphics that clearly show data that is
not supportive of extreme measures to control the release of
CO2.

1) CO2 vs lower atmospheric temperatures: This shows how
poor the correlation is over the last decade between CO2 and
temperatures. The global temperature reached a peak in 1998
during the Super El Nino and has since leveled off and
fallen a bit while CO2 continues to rise.

2) There are claims made about how warm it's getting. This
is the record-high temperature chart for the U.S. Note the
huge number of record highs that occurred in the 1930s
through 50s and how comparatively few there have been since.
The warming we have experienced the last 30 years is not
unusual.

3) This is a graphic prepared by Harvard astrophysicist Dr.
Soon. Note how well the temperature correlates with the
sun's activity (left) and how poorly the over-all record
correlates with CO2 (right).

4) This is the smoking gun that leads me to ask those who
say CO2 is the primary driver of global temperatures, "Where
is the evidence?". The computer models used by the IPCC
predict a "hot spot" six to ten kilometers or so above the
tropics (top). Yet, repeated observations via satellite and
weather balloon measurements show no hot spot (below).

I am suggesting that you break from the party line and look
at opposing data with an open mind. Please continue to be a
steward of our natural resources, but please do not vote to
raise the price of energy for your constituents.

Most respectfully,

Karl Bohnak
Weather Broadcaster, Author


I posted the four graphics I sent to Congressman Stupak
above. Note Congressman Stupak's response on the issue of
higher energy costs. He states that he wants to make sure
"unreasonable costs" are not passed on to consumers. I ask,
"What are unreasonable costs?" I do not want to pay ANY
higher costs (reasonable or unreasonable) for a problem that
just isn't there.

I ask you to look at the data. Don't fall for the line that
"An overwhelming majority of scientists agree that carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing this unusual
warming of our planet." Majority rule is not how science is
conducted. If one wants to play that game, there's a
growing segment of scientists that have declared themselves
"global warming skeptics." Get as much information as you
can, but you will NOT get it from the mainstream media
(MSM). The MSM is in the business of whipping up fear (look
at the recent swine flu story). Stories that the world is
heading toward a precipice are right up its alley. Also,
there is at least one corporate media owner that has a high
stake in seeing this bill passed. Also don't be fooled by
slick advertising campaigns from organizations that have a
vested interest in seeing this bill passed. Cap and trade
and new "alternative energy jobs" proposals have been job
killers across the Atlantic.

If you really believe humans are causing catastrophic
warming and you don't mind paying extra (at least one study
demonstrates that cap and trade will push the overall cost
of energy in the U.S. up by 86%) for energy to drive you
car, heat your home and turn on the lights, then send the
Congressman a letter of support. However, if you feel like
I do, I would make him aware of your opinion. You can
contact him here.

Corporate media owner link:
http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-rall
ies-against-ges-support-for-cap-a

Global warming skeptics link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225439/posts

Stupaks' link: http://www.house.gov/stupak/IMA/issue2.htm




--
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn
are composed entirely of lost airline luggage.
--Mark Russell
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seemingly simple logic problem
    ... CO2 production contributes a tiny amount to the overall levels of CO2 in ... Think Sun cycle and Sun's variable energy output. ... We may be in a local period of warming in a larger global ... cleaner fuels, preserve the remaining carbon sinks, hope for the best ...
    (rec.org.mensa)
  • OT: An expensive solution to a non-problem
    ... You know that "Global Warming" (warming of the earth caused ... emit carbon dioxide. ... energy and most energy in this country is carbon-based. ... Congress needs to move beyond the debate over whether global ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: How much energy is human-released CO2 putting into the worlds oceans?
    ... the human activity driven global warming. ... If it's linked with CO2 then I think the answer is "yes". ... same energy per capita over time, we know parts of the capita have ... would see a power-law rise in CO2 atm ppmv. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Global Warming
    ... refined predicted and predicts a heating effect from CO2. ... However it forms a balance which can't be bucked in the way which CO2 is. ... fact that a proportion of this reflected energy is going down which causes ... otherwise further warming or cooling ould have to occur. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Oh God
    ... you won't be using one of those CO2 guzzlers. ... Surely anything which 'guzzled CO2' would be good for the environment? ... It's easy to buy a widescreen that uses less energy than a 4:3... ... Wastescreen TV's cannot survive along side global warming. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)