Hi,

I would like to suggest we stop this nonsense about AGW/Global warming.  We could save ourselves a lot of money.

Think about it-CO2 is a molecule that all life on this planet depends to live and our EPA declares CO2 as a hazardous material based upon faulty data collection!

Please consider the following points:

Point 1) Measurement populations:

a)      Before going on to the answer, homogeneity of data brings to mind the current Climate Gate scandal. Global temperature trends over the past 150 years have been based on changing universes. 150 years ago, there were just a handful of weather stations, with very poor measurement systems, quite different to those today. The number of stations grew to 8000 in the 1980's, and then fell to around 4000. How can any valid conclusions be drawn about an "average”? This is a comment from a Donald J. Wheeler article about data analysis specifically populations.

b) Thinking about data analysis article – “First, Look at the Data” – Donald Wheeler. Combining this article with 1948 to 2008 Pacific Ocean temperatures you can see that there is a correlation between ocean temperature and the number of Hurricanes in the North Atlantic. What this correlation demonstrates is the Hurricane cycle runs in approx. 25 year patterns with no indication of a gradual increase of storms which counters the alarmist’s claims that storms will increase in severity over time due to global warming.

Point 2) "Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming" By Ross McKitrick

Steve and I showed that the mathematics behind the Mann Hockey Stick was badly flawed, such that its shape was determined by suspect bristlecone tree ring data. Controversies quickly piled up: Two expert panels involving the U.S. National Academy of Sciences were asked to investigate, the U.S. Congress held a hearing, and the media followed the story around the world.

The expert reports upheld all of our criticisms of the Mann Hockey Stick, both of the mathematics and of its reliance on flawed bristlecone pine data. One of the panels, however, argued that while the Mann Hockey Stick itself was flawed, a series of other studies published since 1998 had similar shapes, thus providing support for the view that the late 20th century is unusually warm. The IPCC also made this argument in its 2007 report. But the second expert panel, led by statistician Edward Wegman, pointed out that the other studies are not independent. They are written by the same small circle of authors, only the names are in different orders, and they reuse the same few data climate proxy series over and over.

Point 3) Water (H2O) has special properties like sublimation that can explain why the icecaps and glaciers are melting. It is the Sun that is causing the warming (in cycles) and an increase in CO2 is a symptom of the warming and not the cause of it!

Point 4) my comments to the US Chamber of Commerce - Facing Our Energy Realities:

“The Wall Street JournalChamber, Others Support Legislation That Limits EPAA report on the advancement of a bill that is aimed at preventing the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The Journal notes that the Chamber and other business trade groups praised the legislation.”

CO2 is not a pollutant and is not causing global warming (the data really does not demonstrate this - just run a regression analysis and you will see).  We need to stop this nonsense and develop our energy resources so we establish energy independence with renewable energy sources which include Coal and fossil fuels.  What we really need to control are the byproducts of fossil fuel combustion such as SO4, NO3 and the heavy metals such as Hg.  Our main concern should be carbon monoxide not CO2.  H2 would be the best energy source to exploit at this time.  This is what our discussion should be centered upon: “which is the best energy source to set up in the short term realizing what are the hazardous by products of its use!”

Another comment from someone else:

I find it extremely troubling that the Chamber of Commerce seems to believe in the false premise of anthropogenic global warming/climate change, or whatever it is they wish to call it today. It is especially worrisome when a supposedly conservative organization goes along with what we know is probably the largest fraud in history. Yet somehow they see a reason to give it credence and think that steps should be made to address this 'problem'. There is no definitive evidence to support any such claims that our planet is warming, in fact, there has been no significant warming for at least the past several years. The unfortunate part is that they want to say that science has everything to do with consensus, but real science is not based off of consensus, and not on some bizarre theory put forth to stifle economic growth. I would suggest that the Chamber of Commerce take heed of these facts instead of taking a politically safe position of moderation.

Please let's concentrate on what is important:

Becoming Energy Independent through all our energy resources!

Social Responsibility (SR):

The following is from an article titled – “Ford’s Focus – The automotive pioneer’s ideas on business practices, SR are still applicable today”. Quality Progress magazine, Sept. 2011 pp 48-52

This article is applicable to our energy situation -what I am trying to get at in point 4 above- and to spreading democracy globally in relation to the social responsibility of our leaders to us their citizens or customers! If our leaders-as well as us-applied the following as way of life we could sustain ourselves for a long time.

Someone please inform Mr. Knittel that the US was founded as a free country with a free-market economy.  Apparently he disagrees with the notion that consumers should be free to choose what vehicles they buy and producers free to fulfill their customer’s wants and needs.  Instead, he promotes a government-controlled automotive industry such as those found in socialist and communist countries.  The ease with which the intelligentsia and politicians promote socialist/communist policy these days is shocking.  I fear that many in the US have never known or have forgotten the atrocities that such governmental control can eventually lead to.

No, I don’t need the government to coerce me into buying a vehicle I don’t want or like just to pay homage to a dubious scientific theory.  I prefer to exercise life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – without Big Brother telling me what vehicle I can drive.

Another thing to consider about combustion engines and emissions:

Consider the combustion equation – 2C6H6 + 15O2 > 12CO2 + 6H2O.

You will notice that for 12 CO2’s there are 6 H2O, there is a bias that exists among scientists and alarmists that blinds them to the fact that water (H20) is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  In fact H2O absorbs about 5 times more Infrared radiation than CO2.  It is irresponsible to concentrate only on CO2 and state that CO2 is a pollutant which again all life on this planet depends on!  Also, consider this equation:

CO2 (in water) > CO2 (in air) - This equation is driven to the right as the temperature of water increases.

(An example would be a cold soda going flat as it gets to room temperature).  It has been determined that the concentration of CO2 increases about 25ppm per 1.0 deg C increase in temperature.

Based upon this simple concept and to put it in quality terms an increase in CO2 concentrations is a symptom of global warming and not a cause!

This is why I state:

CO2 is not a pollutant and is not causing global warming (the data really does not demonstrate this - just run a regression analysis and you will see).  We need to stop this nonsense and develop our energy resources so we establish energy independence with renewable energy sources which include Coal and fossil fuels.  What we really need to control are the byproducts of fossil fuel combustion such as SO4, NO3 and the heavy metals such as Hg.  Our main concern should be carbon monoxide not CO2.  H2 would be the best energy source to exploit at this time.  This is what our discussion should be centered upon - which is the best energy source to set up in the short term realizing what are the hazardous by products of its use!

Looking at the anti-science comments, I wonder if this is Quality Digest or Fox News Website.

TO RAMANANRV 123,

Regarding your comment – it is somewhat naive and shortsighted. If you really analyzed my comment  and looked at the references you would see that I take actual data (not manipulated to show what I want it to show) and demonstrate that the liberal elites are chasing a symptom and not a cause!

Please note:

Consensus via Intelligencia is not proof nor is their recommended course of action the most prudent or advisable.