CIVIL DEFENSE PERSPECTIVES

November 2007 (vol. 24, #1)
1601 N Tucson Blvd #9, Tucson AZ 85716
c 2007 Physicians for Civil Defense

In a college course in “abnormal human psychology,” projection was defined as the “ego defense mechanism in which the individual places the blame for his difficulties upon others or attributes to others his own unethical desires and impulses.”

Al Gore, Venture Capitalist
“Health care reform”–with stakeholders vying for a piece of the $2.5 trillion pie in the U.S.–is slated to play a huge part in the 2008 election campaigns. But even that is dwarfed by the makeover of the $6 trillion energy business demanded by global warming alarmists. In addition to their plans to reengineer American medicine, front-running Democrats are signed on to the agenda to slash carbon dioxide emissions. And Republican John McCain has reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation act, stating that the latest IPCC report “puts the final nail in denial's coffin about...global warming.”

Sen. John Edwards claims to have the “most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date.” It would rely on a cap-and-trade scheme and massive subsidies to “clean” energy–financed by “greenhouse gas polluters.” Sen. Hillary Clinton promises to reduce greenhouse emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. So does Sen. Barack Obama, calling climate change the most serious threat facing African-American families, and emissions cuts a “faith issue.” Al Gore, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have all signed the Live-Earth 7-Point Pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% in time to save the earth.

Accomplishing this–i.e. shutting down 75% of the current U.S. energy supply–will require “a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Project, and the Marshall Plan,...scale[d] globally,” states Gore. “Coal plants, gas stations, the internal-combustion engine, petrochemicals, plastic bags, even bottled water will have to give way to clean, green, sustainable technologies” (Fortune 11/12/07).

Government would play a huge role. Gore calls for a “strategic environment initiative,” with government funding for energy R&D placed on a “wartime footing.” A “viable emissions reduction strategy” is needed to “disrupt a new cycle of carbon-intensive infrastructure”–as global energy demand doubles over the next 25 years (Nature 2007;449:973-975).

Private companies are positioning themselves to profit. To help drive something “bigger than the Industrial Revolution,” Gore founded $1 billion Generation Investment Management. After 3 years, the company still awaits the sale of the first company to validate its investment thesis.

Under a cap-and-trade scheme, success will depend on skill in predicting or manipulating government policy. Bookmakers such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would broker the carbon-credit trading that they support, making money from the forced purchases and sales, whatever the market did. Placing big bets are the 10 corporate-welfare seekers that formed the Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). These include Duke Energy, PG&E, FPL, PNM Resources, Alcoa, BP, Caterpillar, Dupont, General Electric, PepsiCo, and others (see www.us-cap.org), hoping for $1.3 trillion in free money.

An American family of four would be $10,800 poorer under a cap-and-trade scheme (Laffer A, Winegarden W, Financial Post 10/2/07, see www.junkscience.com).

Stock market speculators are invited to “get FAT now or fight for scraps later” by “tapping into a $200 Billion [global warming] industry. Shares are predicted to skyrocket from $1.25 to $30! “Corporate America is leading the carbon credit charge.” The Supreme Court has weighed in, calling CO₂ a global warming pollutant (ad from GroundFloor Stocks)!

A Tipping Point?
As there is no actual evidence of climate catastrophe now, alarmists must rely on a concept made popular by Malcolm Gladwell in his book on how Hush Puppies suddenly became fashionable, and other market phenomena.

James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) writes that “the amount of atmospheric CO₂ required to cause dangerous climate change is at most 450 ppm, and likely less than that.” The Planet is perilously close to “tipping points,” owing to positive feedback mechanisms. Moreover, since it takes decades to see effects, past emissions will continue to haunt us, even if we cut back now, he claims.

The good news, Hansen writes, is that “another ice age will never occur, unless humans go extinct.... Humans are now in control of global climate” (“How Can We Avert Dangerous Climate Change?” http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3720v1).

Roy Spencer of the Univ. of Alabama, on the other hand, notes that while all climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming, a strongly negative feedback is actually observed. As the tropic atmosphere warms, high-altitude cirrus clouds decrease, allowing more infrared radiation to escape (cited in TWTW 11/3/07). Spencer is accused of ties to Big Oil, but not to Big Environmentalism, although the latter paid him to give talks and Marshall Institute didn't.

Kevin Trenberth, an advisory high priest for IPCC, admits that models cannot even predict future climate [much less permit us to control it]: “None of the climate states in the models [used by IPCC] corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.... The state of the oceans, sea ice and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.” The IPCC only makes “projections,” not “forecasts,” no matter what words its reports use (Carter B, Brisbane Courier Mail 6/29/07).

The real tipping point is near–for the global warming fear machine, writes Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Efforts to use CO₂ as the lever to move the world, to empower the UN to control every aspect of life through energy rationing, could fail. “We are witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to...Al Gore, the United Nations,...and the media-driven `consensus,'” Inhofe states.

Will truth defeat money and power?

The Facts on Atmospheric CO₂

Figures from the primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature show that global temperatures since 1800 are not correlated with world hydrocarbon use, which has risen 6-fold, and thus cannot have been caused by it.

CO₂ rise during the seven interglacials resulted from ocean out-gassing caused by the temperature rise, not the reverse.

“Human production of 8 Gt C/y of CO₂ is negligible as compared with the 40,000 Gt C...in the oceans and biosphere. At ultimate equilibrium, human-produced CO₂ will have an insignificant effect on the amount in the various reservoirs.”

The residence time (half-life) of CO₂ in the atmosphere is very short: between 7 and 10 years, based on 36 experimental measurements between 1957 and 1992. There is no experimental evidence to support frequently cited computer-model estimates of an atmospheric “lifetime” of 300 years or more.

CO₂ Levels

“The start of the infrared data in 1958 showed a CO₂ concentration 12 ppm higher than the best chemical titration data of the period, these chemical data being very consistent with each other. This discrepancy has never been resolved,” Kauffman writes. “During the Little Ice Age, say 1700—1850, the lower temperatures meant that more CO₂ would have dissolved in sea water, according to Robert Bunsen's measurements around 1850. This is not a trivial difference, since 20% more CO₂ dissolves in water at 15 C than at 20 C [Thus] steady concentrations of CO₂ in air before about 1900 as claimed by Warmers would be unlikely. It would be advisable to have chemical measurements made, once again, to verify the infrared measurements, after 50 years of ignorance.”

According to a paper presented at the fall 2006 meeting of the American Geophysical Union, atmospheric CO₂ levels were as high as 4,500 ppm during the Late Ordovician glaciations. Were the oceans too acidic for life? This was a period of extensive diversification and expansion of marine species (DuHamel J, People for the West, November 2007).

It is claimed that the toxic level of atmospheric CO₂ is 426 ppm, and we'll all be acidotic if emissions aren't curbed. Robertson predicts a (deadly) blood pH of 6.9 (normal 7.40) with atmospheric CO₂ levels of 700 ppm (Current Sci 2006; 90:1607-1609). Greenhouses have levels of 900 ppm (workers remain healthy); occupational safety limits are set at 5,000 ppm; respired lung air, used for CPR, contains >50,000 ppm.

CO₂ build-up from exhaled air will drive persons from unventilated shelters long before lack of oxygen. The first symptoms include headache and deeper breathing. If you anticipate having to “button up” your civil defense shelter for a time, be sure to have carbon dioxide absorbents such as calcium hydroxide on hand. Otherwise, forget the oxygen tank!

Warmers Challenged in Europe

Oliver and CO₂ Offsets

Today, David Cameron, leader of the UK Conservative Party, atones for his carbon emissions by buying carbon credits from Climate Care. This company provides treadle pumps, which “work like step machines in a gym.” Poor farmers in India–or their children–work them for hours to pump groundwater for irrigation. This “positive eco-alternative” to diesel pumps was abolished as punishment for British prisoners a century ago. It takes a villager 3 years of working the foot pump to offset the CO₂ from one flight to India (O'Neill B, Spiked-online.com 9/3/07, quoted on www.sepp.org).

Go Diesel?

In Europe, diesel cars outsell hybrids. They are 30% more efficient than gasoline engines. Punitive taxes drive gasoline to $6/gal; the diesel fuel tax is 40% less (TWTW 8/25/07).

Reductio ad Absurdum

Despite opposition from 71% of Seattle residents, the city council has decreed that as of 2009 all table scraps from single-family homes must be recycled–or else their garbage collection service will be discontinued. “The methane produced by food waste is 23 times more powerful than CO₂. So remember to eat your leftovers,” said Tom Watson of King County's Recycling and Environmental Services (TWTW 9/8/07, www.sepp.org).

China Surpasses U.S. in Emissions, but It's OK

“Alternative” energy (i.e. the kind nobody uses) cannot deliver the power required to achieve the economic growth targets of China and India. “They know full well that the nations of the West depend heavily on the profits, taxes and dividends that accrue from an efficient hydrocarbon economy.” ExxonMobile, Shell, BP, and Total have quietly turned their backs on the low-carbon path (London Times 10/17/07).

China is, however, “shouldering its climate change burden,” writes Ma Kai, head of China's economic planning agency. “Without China's strict family planning policies, the country's population would have increased by 138m people since 1979, resulting in an extra 330m tonnes in emissions” (Financial Times 6/3/07). Apparently, China wants retroactive credit for prohibiting families, by forcible abortion if necessary, from having more than one child (CNNMoney.com 6/4/07).