Daily Archives: May 31, 2009

The Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill (Part3)……The Science?

“All across the world, in every kind of environment and region known to man, increasingly dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.” – President Barack Obama 
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken, famous columnist 

Al Gore, former vice president: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” 

These quotes are representative of a host of statements by environmental activists that all but admit, that at a minimum, there is an intentional attempt to use fear and deception as a means to advance their agenda. 

The scientific community is split into two very distinct groups on the subject of global warming/climate change – those who believe it is induced by humans and those who don’t. 

Let’s start with the hypothesis about how excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can create a greenhouse effect that results in global warming. 

The work of scientists (Fourier 1824 and Tyndall 1861) have been cited as the basis for the greenhouse effect theory. However, an analysis of these papers shows neither included the concept of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  The earth’s atmosphere contains trace gases, some of which absorb heat. These gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide) are referred to as “greenhouse gases.” 

Below is a link to a scientific paper that destroys the basic premise of the greenhouse effect through the science of thermal dynamics and physics. The basic analysis is a comparison of the mechanics of a greenhouse and the thermal dynamics of earth’s atmosphere. It is clear and concise. It contends that the IPCC has manufactured science that supports a political agenda rather than a scientific premise. 


The United States Department of Energy, confirmed in a 1985 report that the “CO2-greenhouse effect”, the theoretical atmospheric greenhouse effect (projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide) does not compare to the actual warming phenomenon in a glass house. This comprehensive pre-IPCC publication explicitly states that the terms “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are misnomers. 


Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore, it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere. 

The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither the climate nor mankind. To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing the functioning of the atmosphere. A more correct term would be atmosphere effect. 

The operation of this effect is described in “The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)

It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2 in the air. Source – Heinz Thieme  http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm

 Also in all of these articles allude to problems with the computer models being used to predict the impending climate disaster. However, when these models are tested against actual data from satellites and weather balloons the models appear to be wrong. See the following articles for more details: 



So here is where we are: 

Current plans and actions to protect the climate lack an adequate basis in the proven results of scientific research. The group of scientists currently offering policy advice has so far failed to demonstrate the alleged mechanisms by which trace gases will damage weather and climate. Moreover, several potentially major influences on climate are being ignored. Enhanced scientific understanding of meteorological processes might suggest substantially different climate protection activities, if in fact these are necessary or feasible. Substantial further research is required by experts in biology, chemistry, thermodynamics and meteorology to improve knowledge of atmospheric dynamics and assess the extent to which human activities affect climate. Source – Heinz Thieme  http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm

In the final installment of this series the discussion will turn to the potential economic impact of this craziness. If allowed to move forward The Waxman Markey Climate Change Bill will have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and it’s citizens. 

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”  

Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”