The Great Greenhouse Scam

I am sure by now that everybody has heard of the "greenhouse effect" and how it is threatening to destroy the earth. But what exactly is this "greenhouse effect"? Let us look at a greenhouse.
Above all else, a greenhouse is a heat trap. A greenhouse is a useful heat trap that enables us to produce vegetation whenever it is still too cold outside for the plants to flourish. We have improved greenhouses to the point that we have control over humidity as well as temperature, and methods of storing up daytime warming to be useful during the night. In short, greenhouses are an integral part of food and plant production. Greenhouses work on a very simple principal.

Greenhouse enclosures admit radiant energy, which excites the molecules inside of the greenhouse into a higher energy state. This higher energy state of the physical world inside of the greenhouse then gives off additional "heat". (All matter that is above absolute zero gives off heat) The heat is trapped because we have built a physical wall to prevent its escape. The heat that escapes from the greenhouse does so by conduction. So to recap, we allow the radiant energy inside of the greenhouse to excite molecules inside of the greenhouse into giving off additional heat. We then prevent the heat from escaping by the physical barrier of the greenhouse walls and ceiling, so temperature rises within the greenhouse. Increasingly, greenhouses are made of much more efficient materials with higher insulating properties that prevent a lot of the heat loss by conduction.

Earth has no physical boundaries to trap the excess heat generated by the radiant energy of the sun. There is no evidence to suggest that any additional greenhouse effect is affecting the Earth's temperature. If more gases are preventing heat loss from Earth, then land surface temperatures would have to be increasing, they are not. In fact, the land surface temperatures have shown a slight decrease, not an increase.There would also have to be increased heating in the troposphere, it is not. Troposphere temperatures also have shown temperature decreases. So what has caused the approximately 1 degree of temperature rise over the past 100 years? Why is there an increase in CO2? There are as many theories as there are scientists, but one thing you can count on is that the increased heat is not because of increased greenhouse effect.

One of the Earth's natural chemicals is carbon dioxide. CO2 comes from a lot of sources including living mammals and decaying vegetation. But the largest supplier by far is from the Oceans. In addition to the radiant heating by the Sun of our Oceans, there is natural heating from the tectonic plate boundaries. Why? The Earth Crust Plate boundaries found in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are teeming with sub sea volcanoes. In fact, there are over a thousand of them. Two of the byproducts of these Volcanoes are CO2 and heat. Cold Ocean water circulates through the many cracks and fissures on the sea floor, is heated and circulated back to the Oceans. As Ocean water is heated, it surrenders more CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 absorb a very minor amount of heat. Convection rapidly transfers the heat back into the atmosphere.

Clouds are a wonderful thing. They reflect an enormous amount of radiant energy, and at the same time give us a cooling shade in the daytime. At night, the moisture in clouds tends to block some of the radiated heat from the earth and as a result, we retain some of this heat. But remember, that during the day, they are preventing a lot of radiant energy from reaching Earth. A good case can be made that clouds are more beneficial as umbrellas than greenhouse traps. Further, there is good evidence that increased sunspot activity inhibits cloud formation in the atmosphere because of strong solar winds created by the intense magnetic storms on the Sun. Any decrease in cloud formation means more radiant energy from the Sun is getting to the earth and creating more heat than normal.

Please do your own investigation about these matters. Do not take to heart the rants of those who preach "Global Warming" as a man made phenomenon or "Greenhouse Effect". It is not! Put some time into your quest to find out all sides of this story before you decide.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Bill O'Reilly: Stunning Ignorance

Bill O'Reilly continues to rail against the oil companies. High gasoline prices, according to O'Reilly, must be because of nefarious tactics and greed by the oil companies. He caterwauls about Bush not doing something about these high prices. Then, just to make his tirade look fair and balanced he includes some of the past presidents.


He completely forgets that we have a market-based economy. The people that need the petroleum buy 70% of the futures contracts. The bidders for those future contracts are people like the airline industry, trucking contractors, and other downstream users whose businesses depend on having an uninterrupted energy supply. The oil companies are not holding back the supply of oil Bill, there just isn't enough to satisfy everybody. The economics of a limited oil supply goes like this. If your business can survive with the cost of energy that is available, then you will bid/use that energy for the available price. If the available price is too high then you either go out of business, or just don't use so much of the high priced stuff. And let me iterate a point here, at the prices we are paying now, using less is only available to some of the people. Most, like the carriers who bring our products to market and commuters have no choice in the matter. Using less for most of them is not an option.

Supply, not more government is the answer. The government created this problem and if they would just get out of the way, the problem would mend. Bush is not a dictator, and cannot wave a magic wand that will get congress off their duffs to rebalance the market. Choking off supply will give these results every time. The congress has forced us to use the foreign oil that has put our economy in such jeopardy. Congress limited offshore drilling, not the oil companies. Congress prohibited nuclear energy, not the oil companies. It was not enough to regulate how the oil companies went about their business. No, making sure that the oil companies drilled in a responsible manner would have been the responsible thing for congress to have done. But they opted to kill exploration instead of just being stewards of the land.

Another straw dog that O'Reilly didn't refute was the idea that the oil companies were not drilling on the leases that they hold. The oil companies, if you listen to the Democrats, are sitting on big tracts of leases and refusing to drill. How ridiculous! The airheads that say things like that certainly know nothing about the oil industry. I personally have property that over time, I have leased the mineral rights out to different oil companies. The oil companies will come in and 'doodlebug' (doodlebug is a term for seismic work) the area and move on. They are not going to spend millions drilling where there is such a low percentage of a return on their investment. Offshore Texas and Louisiana, the oil companies do seismic work to determine where oil might be found. They do seismic surveys all over the gulf. This tells the oil companies which properties that they want to lease. They are not going to pay for leases and drill in areas if there is no prospect of a return on investment. In other words, they are not going to spend millions on a dry holes intentionally. The Democrats keep throwing up this available, non-productive land to enhance their position. Where were you Bill when your guest threw up that argument?

If you are going to have a segment about oil and oil production, either learn something about it or just don't do it. We also note that you never have anybody on your show who actually knows anything about the oil industry.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Congressional Sleaze

It was supposed to be the new Congress. The one that wasn't tied to corruption and scandal. However, we are learning that this Congress is anything but a scandal free governing body.

As the details of sweetheart loans to those in the Congress get unearthed, one Congressman, Representative Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, called for hearings on Monday to delve into the matter. His calls for the probe fell on deaf ears though because neither party wanted to find out where the trail of shady loan dealings went. Senator Dodd and others have already been called out for their loan dealings with Country Wide.

It is particularly interesting about Senator Dodd because he claims that he wasn't aware of anything other than a VIP loan. He claims not to have known about his points and other loan details. Mortgage loaners go over all such details before making a loan. Mr. Dodd had to know what he was getting into, and to think he was a candidate for President.

Then we have the Congressman from Louisiana William Jefferson who was caught red handed with $90,000 concealed in his freezer. He is awaiting trial for his misdeeds (Bribery) but is running for re-election regardless of his problems.

The Republicans are just as guilty of scandal, remember the public gay sex solicitation by Senator Larry Craig, R-Idaho in a public restroom at the airport.

Nancy Pelosi and her husband' s portfolio show part ownership of the luxurious CordeValle Golf Club in San Martin, CA, which they were granted a permit to build in 1996 only if they created natural habitats for several local endangered species. To date, these habitats still have not been built. The golf course has also been cited for polluting groundwater. They have hired lobbyists to fight the regulations. Yep, no point in fulfilling an agreement when you have political power on your side.

Harry Reid worked his magic in Nevada and was caught without a disclosure on real-estate deals that netted him $700,000 in profit. Just an 'oversight' according to Reid.

Ahh, the sweet life of the powerful. This is just a short list of what is happening with our elected officials. The idea here was just to get you to understand how corrupt things are in Washington.
In short, the list is long and it is very apparent that there is just as much sleaze in Washington with the Democrats as there was under the Republicans. Nothing has changed except the taxes you pay and that will increase if the Dems win more seats during this election cycle.

A serious effort to 'throw the bums out of office' sounds good to me. If not a complete throughout of the bums, a real effort to institute term limits would help.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Aggravated with PUR Filters

Pretty nifty idea huh! A filter that attaches to your faucet so that you can enjoy water that taste good, knocks out all of the baddies, and is self alarming whenever the filter is getting past its prime.

The PUR faucet filter does all of that. Even though their filters are on the expensive side, the investment is miniscule compared to the benefits you receive from having a water filter. It even makes the coffee taste better.

All of the benefits aside for a moment. Changing that filter is an ordeal. There is no way to grip the end of the cartridge housing to unscrew it. I have used a rag to no avail, and there is no place to grip the thing with pliers. Enough force has to be used to dislodge the cover to replace the filter that you risk tearing up the faucet with the torque.

After I changed the first filter on that contraption, I put some edible lubricant on the O-Ring to smooth out changing the filter the next time. However, it did not work. The filter does such a good job on the water, cleaning up its taste and smell, that I am loathe to buy a competing product. Okay, so I decided to contact PUR and tell them of my dilemma and maybe they had a solution to the filter-changing problem.

Their website was just as aggravating. The website for PUR at http://www.purwaterfilter.com/ has no way to contact the company. They prefer to remain insulated from their customers and not have to deal with those who use their products. Their website has endless ways to order a PUR filter or faucet attachment, but you cannot contact for comments about their product.

Wal-Mart may or may not refund my money for the thing, but a refund still does not solve the problem. In good faith, I wanted to convey to PUR my experiences with their product. This blog will have to suffice because of the arrogance of a company that evidently does not want to hear from its customer base. Since there are 2 more filters to use in the package, I will struggle with that filter housing until those are used up. My next move will be for an under the sink reverse osmosis/filter unit.

Cheers,

-Robert-

High Executive Pay

The flap over executive pay is getting louder. There are those that grumble about bad CEOs cashing in. The complainers would give compensation only those executives who do a good job while at the helm of a company.

One problem needs resolution before executive salaries can come down to an Earthly standard.

One of the biggest problems is what the CEO knows about the company. Good CEOs are tempted to competitors because of their skill at running a company. A competitor would gain an edge by hiring the successful executive.

That prospective executive knows all about the business from the old company. He knows the production costs, and limitations of the company. In short, he knows where all the bodies are buried. If allowed to set up shop with a competitor, he could possibly ruin the business with just his intimate knowledge of the inner workings of his previous company.

Most boards would rather meet or beat the competitors offer just to prevent havoc to the business. Remember, bad CEOs possess that same intimate, inner working knowledge of a company. It is by far cheaper to retire the executive with a golden parachute than to have an ex-CEO sharing what he knows with another company.

It is not a reward for doing poorly as an executive. It is a way of getting rid of an executive that will not hurt the business.

In short, these guys are bought off because of what they know rather than anything to do with business performance.

Cheers,

-Robert-

U.S. Supreme Court Flavors

The tricky part is interpretation. The Constitution itself is a straightforward document that details how we are to govern this country. It describes the three branches and the jurisdiction of each. It has a bill of rights to delineate the rights of the citizenry. The constitution is amendable whenever it becomes necessary.

But amendments are not a slam-dunk even when the proposed amendment has passionate support. Amendments need three-fourths of the states to ratify a proposal. This requirement makes it difficult to get an amendment passed. The diversity of experiences by the citizens of each state, make it difficult to amend the Constitution. Any proposal needs the ratification of 38 of the fifty states.

However, there is a work-around. Our Supreme Court Justices act as seers. They know that the Constitution does not specifically address all issues. So they take it upon themselves to divine meaning in the Constitution. It is in the divination of the meaning of the Constitution where the Court flavor comes into being.

When an issue comes before the Court that the Constitution does not specifically address, the Justices can rule one way or the other or they can refuse to hear the case. They write their opinions in that magnanimous legal jargon that is supposed to convey omnipotence.

The decisions passed down by the Supreme Court are 'flavored' by the makeup of the Court. Politically left justices tend to rule in favor of issues that favor Liberal causes, while politically right justices tend to rule in favor of Conservative causes.

If the Constitution does not address an issue, their decision sets a precedent that serves as a guideline for future courts to use. Justices from the right or the left would not dare send an issue to Congress for a decision by the people using the amendment process. The Supreme Court Justices reserve the power to amend the Constitution through their decisions. That is why their makeup is so important politically.

In a perfect world, the Supreme Court would only decide issues addressed by the Constitution. Amendments that clarify the position of the will of the people on the social issues of our times should be proposed. For instance, if you think abortions should be legal, put the proposal through the amendment process. If the proposal gets 38 states to ratify it, then it becomes the law of the land. If not, then the people have spoken, abortion would not be granted status. You might ask: "Why would we need an amendment for this issue?" Well, if Congress passed a law allowing abortion, it would be challenged and go to the Supreme Court. Since the Constitution does not mention abortion, we would be leaving the decision of rewriting of the constitution to 9 men in black robes instead of the will of the people.

It is time to utilize the amendment process. The people need to decide the social issues of our times. The beauty of the amendment process is that if the people make a mistake, they can undo it with an amendment. Let the Justices decide on those cases covered by the Constitution and not have the power to continually rewrite it through decree.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Will Obama Get the Nomination?

For all the world, it looks like Obama has won the Democratic nomination. But hold on! Their convention is months away, and Obama's poll numbers are weak. If more revelations that are sordid come out about his associations, it is possible for him to start losing those 'super delegates'. The super delegates are not the same as pledged delegates.

As a Conservative, Obama is the perfect candidate to run against. It would be much harder to beat an Al Gore for instance. If Obama does not win the nomination on the first ballot at the Democrats Convention, things could get interesting.

It is only my belief, but I do not believe that Hillary can win on a second ballot. Giving Hillary the nomination over Obama would be too divisive for the party.

Look for another Democratic figure to get the nomination who would be a party unifier. A Democrat with hero status! A Democrat who is out to save the world! The only person who has the clout to bring together all elements of the Democratic party is Al Gore. The Democrat Elites want to win so bad that they will ignore their own primaries.

Cheers,

-Robert-