No Mr. President, Asthma is NOT caused by Outdoor Air Pollution

Dear Pres. Obama,
This recent research by Dr. Corrine Keet of John’s Hopkins Children’s Center is pretty clear in its results, having studied more than 23,000 children of various ethnic backgrounds and various living arrangements and socioeconomic factors. Here are the conclusions: Although the prevalence of asthma is high in some inner-city areas, this is largely explained by demographic factors and not by living in an urban neighborhood. “Our results highlight the changing face of pediatric asthma and suggest that living in an urban area is, by itself, not a risk factor for asthma,” lead author Keet, a pediatric allergy and asthma specialist at Johns Hopkins, said in the study. “Instead, we see that poverty and being African American or Puerto Rican are the most potent predictors of asthma risk.”

Similarly, the NERA Economic Consulting July 2014 report did not support the notion that lower ground-level ozone levels are worth the expense, saying “Employing our integrated energy-economic model (NewERA), we estimate that the potential emissions control costs would reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $270 billion per year on average over the period from 2017 through 2040 and by more than $3 trillion over that period in present value terms. The potential labor market impacts represent an average annual loss of 2.9 million job-equivalents. Employing our integrated energy-economic model (NewERA), we estimate that the potential emissions control costs would reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $270 billion per year on average over the period from 2017 through 2040 and by more than $3 trillion over that period in present value terms. The potential labor market impacts represent an average annual loss of 2.9 million job-equivalents.
This same NERA report gave EPA a tongue lashing, saying in summary“In particular, EPA needs to make a concerted effort to specify the full set of controls needed to achieve attainment of various ozone standards. A concerted effort is needed because currently EPA’s “known” controls represent only one-third of the estimated reductions needed to achieve a 60 ppb standard, with the remaining two-thirds consisting of unspecified (“unknown”) controls. Finally, need I remind you that Dr. Peter Valberg, Gradient Corporation principal, already testified on the US EPA’s Projections of Mortality Reduction Achieved by Reducing Levels of Particulate (PM-2.5) in Our Ambient Outdoor Air, and he found that “The dollar value of EPA’s calculated benefits is dominated by promised reductions in deaths that EPA assumes to be caused by Particular Matter (PM25) in our ambient air. Asthma is also monetized by the EPA as a ambient-air concern.”
Mr. Valberg, in his testimony, described EPA’s attempt to correlate changes in mortality with differences in Particular Matter (PM) as being fatally flawed. He finalizes by saying that the evidence doesn’t add up.(to support EPA’s attempt to lower the PM2.5 limits)

I believe that you could more easily correlate asthma deaths with How Childhood Trauma Affects Health Across a Lifetime, in this excellent presentation by Ms. Nadine Burke Harris, rather than correlation with PM at any level.

So please direct your EPA administrator, Ms. Gina McCarthy, to abandon her efforts to reduce ground-level ozone essentially by forcing enormous reductions in fossil fuel usage. Also, please direct your science advisor, Mr. John Holden, to take some lessons in how to read graphs and other climate-related literature, like these, PowerPoint Presentation – Ice Cores, jwbishop_6a.29712462..- Is there global cooling?, Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels, Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers , and EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf .Both you and Ms. McCarthy claim to be following the science, but it seems to me that both of you are following a ideological bent on destroying carbon-based energy sources.

Here you are in Panama City, Panama, saying that for 50 years, our approach towards Cuba was not working, and it’s time for something new. Well Mr. Pres., for more than 100 years, the fossil fuel industry has been supplying America with all of its energy needs quite successfully, so why change that right now?

Standard

MORE AGNOSTICISM ON CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW)

MORE AGNOSTICISM TOWARDS CAGW

Dear Pres. Obama,

You must feeling pretty confident, now that the third-quarter results are in on the economy, and I can hear your Obamabots/Sycophants yelling loudly that this the best the economy has been in more than a decade. You yourself said as much, “When I took office, the deficit was nearly 10% of GDP, today it’s approaching 3%”, http://bit.ly/17ULtOr But the Tampa BayTimes PoliticalFact.com said the following “The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True. “ Other commentators were less charitable, for example, “When we say that the Bush record of economic growth was 1.7%, greater by a hair than Obama’s current 1.6%, we should also account for the fact that the predicate of the comparison is highly differential. Bush started from a high base and came in low. Obama started from a low base and came in worse. “, http://onforb.es/1zozZ1d , or this article by James Glassman, entitled “The Facts About Budget Deficits: How The Presidents Truly Rank”, http://onforb.es/1zoJ4ap . Mr. Glassman uses three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two. “Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama (meaning last). But even more critically speaking, you’ve been accused of creating a smoke and mirrors data dishonesty calculated and reported to made it look rosy, http://bit.ly/1ugSJym Mr. John Williams, the author of the newsletter, ShadowStats.com says that GDP numbers reported by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) “a statistical illusion created by using too-low a rate of inflation in deflating (removing inflation effects) from the GDP series.”Furthermore, Mr. Donald Lambro,even less charitable, when writing in the Washington Times, said that “Over the past six years, President Pinocchio has been given numerous admonitions from media fact-checkers for making patently false statements about his performance. He is still at it as he enters his seventh year in office, wildly exaggerating the impact of his actions by cherry-picking the good numbers and ignoring the bad ones.”Mr. Lambro went on to say “The truth is that wages over the course of Mr. Obama’s administration have been largely flat, job creation numbers were far below monthly rates during the recoveries of the 1990s and ‘80s under Presidents Clinton and Reagan. Annual economic growth rates remained weak.”… “Heading into the sixth year of this so-called recovery, the 140 million employment payroll count in November was up by a pathetic 1.2 percent over the 138.4 million in January 2008….As for Mr. Obama’s boast that unemployment was down to 5.8 (a figure riddled with statistical fiction), that’s a long way from the 4.4 percent full-employment rate in May 2007….Others were underwhelmed. “It has been a slog,” says economist Robert J. Samuelson. “Generally, the numbers aren’t impressive.

NOW FOR THE REAL REASON I AM CONTACTING YOU TODAY

I sure hope you’re NOT planning to create more destruction in our economy by imposing yet more of your environmental and climate change solutions, when we really don’t know how much of the global warming is due to human influence. For example, this article, “Global Warming? No, Natural, Predictable Climate Change”, http://onforb.es/1EhpNdL says that the earth has benefited from being in a natural warming cycle and that we are about to exit that warming cycle for a cold period or even an Ice Age. Also, this article also says the following “The Duke University/NASA JPL study estimates that as much as 0.3 degrees of warming from 1970 to 2000 may have been naturally induced by the 60-year modulation during the warming phase, amounting to at least 43-60% of the 0.5-0.7 degrees allegedly caused by human greenhouse emissions. “ Regarding this CO2 that seems so horrible to you, were you aware, Mr. President, that our nuclear-powered submarines have significantly higher levels of CO2 in their atmospheres than any outside air, “Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46 , http://bit.ly/13RpBRm , and commercial greenhouses are routinely “pumped-up” with approximately 1500 ppm of CO2 just to accelerate plant growth, or as this site says “Nope, it’s not a pollutant that threatens human civilization as has been ridiculously claimed by global warming doomsday pushers. CO2 actually increases plant yields, accelerates “re-greening” and improves reforestation of the planet. And while today’s atmosphere contains only 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, CO2 generators can help raise that level to 1500 ppm inside greenhouses, thereby accelerating plant growth and food production.” (emphasis already in the ad), http://bit.ly/1Ids6uY . So Mr. Pres., why do you continue to call CO2 “carbon”? as if carbon could float up into the air (being lighter than air apparently?).Even if you were worried about CO2, NOT CARBON levels in the atmosphere, these webpages describe how increases in temperature lead CO2 increases, not the other way around, (1) “Carbon Dioxide and Air Temperature: Who Leads and Who Follows? | Cornwall Alliance”, http://bit.ly/1rUVqEd , (2) “A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around | Watts Up With That?”, http://bit.ly/14nII6X, and (3), in talking about the Infamous temperature and CO2 graph from Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie says the following “…if the graphs are mapped onto each other instead of being counterposed one above the other, as Mr Gore does, …it becomes very clear that, very consistently, every temperature rise actually precedes the carbon [dioxide] rise by some 800 years. This undeniable time lag is critical since what it says is that more carbon in the air did not lead to global warming in times past. If so, factors other than carbon must have set off the various periods of global warming in times past, http://bit.ly/1By6bMR. “More importantly from a general climate issue, the following information derived from this webpage, “CO2 Science-The Pathetic Relationship Between Atmospheric CO2 and Earth’s Temperature Over the Past Sixty Million Years“, http://bit.ly/1xTK9GR , says “Starting 60 million years before present (BP), the authors have the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration at approximately 3600 ppm and the oxygen isotope ratio at about 0.3 per mil. Thirteen million years later, however, the air’s CO2 concentration has dropped all the way down to 500 ppm; but the oxygen isotope ratio has dropped (implying a rise in temperature) to zero, which is, of course, just the opposite of what one would expect from the “large and predictable effect” of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.

Next comes a large spike in the air’s CO2 content, all the way up to a value of 2400 ppm. And what does the oxygen isotope ratio do? It rises slightly (implying temperature falls slightly) to about 0.4 per mil, which is again just the opposite of what one would expect from the “large and predictable effect” of CO2 on temperature that is commonly assumed.

After the spike in CO2, of course, the air’s CO2 concentration drops dramatically, declining to a minimum value of close to what it is today. And the oxygen isotope ratio? It barely changes at all, defying once again the common assumption of the “large and predictable effect” of CO2 on temperature.”(emphasis added)

Finally, in ancient times, CO2 was many times higher than it is today, and apparently nothing was wrong then. Please look at the CO2 versus temperature chart below,

http://bit.ly/1xQStRp


As you can see, Sir, temperature and CO2 have absolutely no connection, as over time, both have fluctuated independently of the other.

Also, the right Rev. Forster’s Introduction to Peter Lee’s article, “Ethics and Climate Change Policy”, says it all; unless alarmists acknowledge that not all is known about climate change, and therefore we SHOULD NOT be pushing forward into heavy expenditures of funds for unknown benefit, without a broad consensus from the public. http://bit.ly/1AnFrPG , and I feel certain that you don’t have that consensus from the public, given just how weakly the public rates climate change among other national interest issues, “US Public Worried about ISIL, Putin– But Climate Change is Real Challenge | Informed Comment”, http://bit.ly/1xjWTVA .Mr. Pres., I think it is important for you to recognize that this article says that even among Democrats, only slightly more than a majority think Global Warming is a threat. Quoting from this article’s second paragraph referring to global warming., “In short, the US public is again being misled by its media and politicians as to the true shape of the world, and is likely to suffer pretty badly for this ignorance.

“We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic.

‘The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’

The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go. More and more we are seeing the alarmists being increasingly marginalized. As the data pours in, their science is looking more and more preposterous”, http://bit.ly/1IsVspa .

Let’s see what the IPCC warming model looks like when it is plotted as a cumulative bar graph:

http://bit.ly/1sVPyv5

The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0.03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0.43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming.

The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, much more equal. http://bit.ly/1tGuFPA

Atmosphere Humidity: NOAA Scientists Determine Reality Is Opposite Of Climate Models’ Prediction

The IPCC’s CAGW hypothesis necessitates that troposphere humidity increases as levels of atmospheric CO2 increase. Simply stated (this is not rocket science):

*First CO2 levels increase, thus
       *Atmospheric warming increases, thus
       *Earth’s surface warms, thus
       *Earth surface water evaporates, thus
       *Atmosphere humidity increases, thus
       *Atmosphere water vapor increases (i.e. greenhouse gas), thus
       *Atmosphere warms further, thus
       *Earth’s surface warms even more, thus
       *More Earth’s water evaporates into atmosphere, thus
       *A positive feedback loop established, and continues

For the above climate “tipping point” to initiate, the atmosphere humidity has to absolutely increase, which the above chart of empirical evidence reveals it has not.

In fact, as seen, the atmospheric humidity is decreasing over time while CO2 levels increase – the exact opposite of all climate model and “consensus” expert predictions.” Extracted from: http://bit.ly/1tHUr5V

http://bit.ly/1GpbPYe

Sir,the second major issue I think you are likely to go wrong on is the proposed EPA ozone rules, http://1.usa.gov/1xExBTD . Not only has the state of Texas disagreed with these proposed rules, http://bit.ly/1xWL5bY , but Texas has strongly questioned the need for more stringent ozone standards, “We think that the EPA’s process of setting ozone standards has not scientifically proven this, and that further lowering of the ozone standard will fail to provide any measurable increase in human health protection.

The EPA’s own modeling in its Health Risk and Exposure Assessment (HREA) indicates that lowering ozone concentrations would actually result in more deaths in some cities (Appendix 7, page 7B-2 of the HREA). Either this indicates that lowering the ozone standard defeats its stated purpose of protecting human health, or it indicates that something is wrong with the EPA’s interpretation of the data. Either way, it’s not a good argument for lowering the ozone standard.”, http://bit.ly/1DKWCf5 .

Texas is not the only state to disagree with EPA rules regarding ozone, as New Jersey sent a letter to Ms. McCarthy, the head of the EPA, opposing adoption of the EPA’s Proposed Rule on Carbon Pollution Emissions for existing stationary sources, http://bit.ly/1tUkd76 . Also, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity produced a document showing the Six Major Myths About EPA Proposal Carbon Regulations, http://bit.ly/1AZX5ul . This not the first time that Congress has heard nonsensical things regarding this program, as in 2011, Mr. Peter Valberg, a principal in Gradient Corporation, testified, http://1.usa.gov/1BRnU3V that EPA’s analysis on air pollution standards for ozone and asthma were inaccurate. Mr. Valberg specifically called into question the data presented by EPA and said that the EPA could not justify the lives saved from asthma and hospitalizations by their numbers. Please have your science adviser read this article and direct the EPA to straighten up and fly right, and quit making up stuff! If you think that the EPA is correct in what they’re doing, please read Mr. Valberg’s bio, http://bit.ly/1IBbvS1 . Personally, I would think twice about challenging his knowledge/expertise.

I thought you were the President who was going to restore Science to the decision-making process. Well sir, based on this discussion as well as your views on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), I don’t think you have learned how to ask hard questions of any of your staff, or you’re (as we used to say in the Navy).striking for, a full membership in the Club of Rome’s “The Green Agenda”, http://bit.ly/1y1cIRq .

The third thing I think you’re making a mistake on is planning to veto legislation which would authorize construction of the XL pipeline, H.R. 3, the Keystone XL pipeline Act, http://1.usa.gov/1yaGBOM. The State Department has already blessed this project, and there is virtually no environmental emissions. More importantly, these Tar Sands will be sold to someone, most likely China, if we don’t build the Keystone Pipeline and refine the product ourselves. Mr. Pres., whom would you trust to do it better than the US, with fewer emissions?

Finely, the fourth area of concern is your attempt to control methane gases in the oil and gas industry. Quoting from an article on this, http://bit.ly/1DPeRTeMethane is the second biggest driver of climate change, after carbon dioxide. On a 20-year timescale, it is 87 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas. (emphasis added) Well, Mr. Pres., do you recognize that the entire greenhouse gas issue is blown out of proportion to its relationship on climate. This webpage will show you how little greenhouse gases effects climate, “Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.”, http://bit.ly/1g4uy9Z Those are some awfully small contributions toward global warming,and maybe not worth pursuing, given the destruction to the economy it would cause to do so.

In summation, perhaps most importantly of all, as the world’s leader in democracy, if you force these kind of policies on Third World nations, you are subjugating them to a future of nondevelopment, and being permanently underclass.

I thought you would be more interested in seeing your fellow man improve his lot, but apparently not.

Standard

More Evidence of The IPCC Being Wrong

Dear Pres. Obama,
The latest peer-reviewed evidence from so-called deniers on global warming, shows that the IPCC has grossly overestimated the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, and therefore no more than approximately 1° of heat will be gained during the next century. Please give up your attempt to modify the climate, as we have little bearing on such a complex system, and all you’re doing is wasting money on a fruitless fallacy.

http://bit.ly/1gOYRox

Standard

NO MR. PRES., EXTREME WEATHER DOES NOT EQUAL CLIMATE

 

Your e-mail said “Carbon pollution is putting our health and safety at risk, contributing to higher rates of asthma attacks and more frequent and severe heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods.”, yet this is NOT TRUE. In fact, severe weather has only decreased in recent years,as described here, here, here, here, and finally here . As far as asthma is concerned, there is significant disagreement over the role of outdoor air qualitycontribution to that problem, as described here , here , here , and finally here.

We know that the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.  Sea levels in New York Harbor are a foot higher than a century ago.” Your administration’s has adjusted climate records many times as documented here, here, here, , here , here, here, here, and here. I could go on and on, because James Hansen is a fraud, trying to make recent climate records meet his agenda and yours. As far as sea level is concerned this research article shows that Sea Level Trends Nearly Constant For The Past 100 Years , and this research article says that oceans will fall not rise over time , and this article shows that even the Theory of Global Warming has been upset by falling sea levels .This research shows that CO2 and global warming have had zero impact on the storms of the last 50 years Finally, this research shows that sea level rise has greatly DECELERATED in the last 10 years, http://bit.ly/MhuxXG

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years.  Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record — faster than most models had predicted it would.  These are facts. ““ Mr. President that’s pretty strange, because this article shows that the ocean have been relatively stable temperature for years, http://n.pr/1eRtAvV (You will have to read the narrative, or listen to it on NPR , but it basically says that 3000 robots in the ocean since 2003 have failed to find any extra heat in the oceans) As far as the Arctic is concerned, this is also a distortion of the facts, as the Arctic was warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period, http://bit.ly/1f7Hihd .Also, the Arctic actually gained 920,000 square miles of ice during 2013 over 2012, the largest year-to-year increase since satellite records began, http://onforb.es/1avbowz. Also, Sir, recent research has shown that climate is defined more by Solar, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). These provide all the variability needed as natural sources, without external influence like CO2, http://bit.ly/1kcUuEb

Today, about 40 percent of our carbon pollution comes from power plants.  But while we limit the amount of mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals they pump into our air and water, there are no Federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution they release.  That is why I have directed the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.” I don’t understand why you’re so against carbon dioxide, and also calling it carbon pollution. It’s the elixir of life, responsible for all of our food source growth. One little fact you apparently don’t even understand is that mankind’s contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere is is so small compared to what is naturally produced, that it is nicely portrayed by this video on the Dallas Cowboys football stadium, 100,000 seats, http://slidesha.re/1e2Sb5N . Additionally, your war on coal is ill advised, as research has proved that coal is not the reason for any Global Warming, http://bit.ly/1fl8iHd

As power plants modernize and cut their pollution, we will do even more to boost clean energy production.  Thanks in part to my Administration’s investments in renewable energy—the largest of their kind in American history—the United States has already doubled our output from wind and solar, and thousands of Americans now have jobs as a result.” This increase in renewables hasn’t come cheaply. The price of each of these so-called green jobs has been astronomical. For example, you praised Spain for her renewables program, yet her economy is failing because if it. A noted Spanish economist estimated that for every Spanish green job created, nine(9)  non-green jobs were lost, http://bit.ly/1apvxDM. Already, your budget for renewables is getting way out-of-control. It would be much better if you and Congress removed all subsidies from all forms of energy production, to allow them to compete on a level playing field. ”I have set a goal of doubling electricity production from these sources again by 2020 so we can build on our momentum and create even more jobs.” Your administration’s attempt to increase the percentage of renewables led to the Solyndra scandal, rather than letting the marketplace decide where photovoltaics had a chance of competing. Unfortunately, that’s your legacy with renewable energy, as discussed here.

“Now,we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago — that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.” Theworld temperature has shown no warming for 17 years, http://bit.ly/1clHhpX. Mr. Pres. I was a nine-year old boy when I witnessed the results of my family’s vacation cottage surviving the carnage by what had been called the Storm of the Century, This 1962 storm made this list where will Sandy Rank Among These Worst U.S. Storms Of All Time, and the US Coast and Geodetic Survey declared it as the storm that with most coastal land lost in history.

No single step can reverse the effects of climate change.  But as a Nation, we have a moral obligation to act—not just for ourselves, but for future generations.  This is not just a job for politicians.  We need you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, and your friends and tell them what is at stake.  We need people to speak up for the facts and broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.

My Administration is making a serious, sustained commitment to address climate change.  I encourage you to learn more about my Climate Action Plan at www.WhiteHouse.gov/Climate-Change.” I personally am speaking-up for the facts, which apparently you don’t understand, or won’t acknowledge.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama, you are way in over your head.and I fear that you and the entire Democratic Party has adopted the environmental mantra of the Club of Rome, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”,http://bit.ly/1k9obrs

This is probably my favorite quoteIn science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” from Aliens Cause Global Warming:”A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton, 2003,http://bit.ly/10vy0pr

Even former Senior Operations Research Analyst of the US EPA, Dr. Alan Carlin, thinks that Global Warming is a complete hoax, from A-Z, http://bit.ly/12tm0HMAlso, Oliver K. Manuel, Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, has written an excellent blog that relates to this issue, http://omanuel.wordpress.com/ . I personally think that you and your entire EPA staff could benefit from taking a short climate quiz, http://bit.ly/1jDcLfw .

Mr. Pres., Anthony Watts has an excellent job of reviewing your current climate plan from both a pros and cons standpoint, and his analysis is located here . Now that you have doubled-down on your plan by proposing the establishment of regional climate hubs, and declaring that California’s drought is caused by Climate Change, I personally want nothing to do with your environmental BS, as I have read wonderful accounts of how the world is really doing, http://amzn.to/19LE5QK and http://amzn.to/IrVHYa.

Standard
Earth_Viewed_From_Space

Rebuttal To Presidential Speech On Climate Change

Dear Mr. Pres.,
I’ve watched some of your climate change speech last Tuesday, June 25, at Georgetown, and read the entire text and you encouraged citizens to speak up for the facts, so that is what I’m doing here.
Regarding your claim that scientists were aware of CO2 levels in the atmosphere as early as the 50s, concern over such levels didn’t really take hold until VP Gore made a case for it, inaccurately, I believe, in his book An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, http://amzn.to/14hcJ37, and a documentary film put together by Davis Guggenheim with Mr. Mr. Gore’s slideshow and the book. See this volume for a rebuttal, http://bit.ly/1aXfABR, which includes the nine (9) errors in Mr. Gore’s movie identified by the High Court in London. The judge stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. In addition of these nine errors, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, now affiliated with the Science and Public Policy Institute, identified an additional 26 more errors or misrepresentations in the movie. Similarly, other errors in Al Gore’s movie were noted in Falsehoods in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, http://bit.ly/19RW3kY
Secondly, as far as CO2 being a pollutant as you stated, most scientists believe that CO2 is a gas necessary for all human life, because it feeds all plant life. Some have even said “Mr. President, It’s Not “Carbon Pollution” It’s the “Elixir of Life!”, http://bit.ly/17Krwbr .Furthermore, the implication that CO2 levels are driving temperatures is contrary to observations, as demonstrated here, http://bit.ly/19HZ6zm , The most complete collection of information I’ve seen recently on the possibility of Anthropogenic Global Warming is located at the Climate Science portion of the Green World Trust http://bit.ly/13ibfsx .From this page, if one clicks on the Skeptics Climate Science PowerPoint presentation, to the right of the world image at the top of the page, one will be presented with a 90-slide presentation of “Catastrophe Deconstructed” (the title page), suitable for both laypersons as well as experts in their respective fields.
Major Points from the PowerPoint Presentation that I believe should be emphasized:
Slide 21-The false assumption regarding CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for 100 years, prior to being recycled to the oceans.
Slide 37-The ice core historical model shows that temperature increased 800 hundred years BEFORE CO2 increases.
Slide 50-The quote from Dr. Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, regarding alleged AGW.
Slide 52- How the Little Ice Age (LIA) was omitted from the climate record.
Slide 61-Observed warming of 0.6 Celsius, seem to support the lack of feedback in the climate model.
Slide 64-How James Hansen’s 1988 forecast for the future was wildly exaggerated.
Slide 68-70-The fallacy of increased droughts, greater rainfall, and increasing hurricanes/cyclones due to elevated CO2.
Slide 81-Read the problems with the “Precautionary Principle”.
Slide82-How AGW alarmism is Undermining the Environmental Movement
and most importantly, Slide 87-A Plea for Better Scientific Literacy And Integrity.

For further studying this issue, Slide 88 proposes A Plea for Real Energy Research.
And finally, in the U.S. Senate Committee on environment and Public Works portion, the report on Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression, http://1.usa.gov/17RVlqD Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, had nothing but praise for the conference. “It was the best climate conference I have attended in my 30 years in the professional societies. The two-day meeting featured over 100 excellent presentations made by scientists from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States,” D’Aleo wrote on his website http://www.IceCap.US on March 4. [Note: The oft repeated notion of “hundreds” or even “thousands” of scientists affiliated with the UN agreeing to a single “consensus” does not hold up to scrutiny. Out of all the scientists affiliated with the UN, only 52 scientists participated in UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, which had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process. – LINK & LINK (emphasis added)

Just remember what the great Nobel prize-winning theoretical physicist Feynman’s said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong”‘ applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

So, Mr. Pres., please don’t continue to hang this unexorcised poltergeist around the neck of the American economy, as it is unlikely to ever recover at all.

Richard A Fletcher
11558 Carowind Lane
San Diego, CA 92131
rfletch2@san.rr.com
858-693-6099

Standard