CO2 Has Little Effect on the World's Temperature

An email that I received today from The CO2 Coalition organization provides four plots of global temperature versus either CO2 emissions or the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that send a clear signal that CO2 at the concentrations long found in the atmosphere has little effect upon the temperature.  I want to be sure that my friends and relatives have an opportunity to see this very important data.

The consequences of pursuing net zero carbon emissions are catastrophic economically.  In addition, without mankind pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the long term trend was CO2 atmospheric concentrations so low that plants could not survive.  In 1850, atmospheric carbon dioxide was so low that plant life was hanging by a thread.  As the CO2 Coalition has repeatedly pointed out, farm production has benefited greatly due to the increased CO2 emissions of mankind since WWII.  The failure to use coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear power results in the cost of all activities dependent upon energy increasing.  The carbon dioxide emissions due to carbon-based fuel use decrease the cost of food because their emissions are fertilizer for plants in addition to decreasing many processing and delivery costs in food production.  With 8.2 billion people on this Earth, a net zero policy will result in mass starvation. 

One wonders at the severe consequences of the highly irrational policies of those supporting the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming. Some of these people know what they are doing and they do not care as long as they gain power, wealth, or damage the capitalist system and the private sector.  Others have adopted policy beliefs without fulfilling their responsibility to understand what they are doing before they undertake actions with catastrophic consequences, commonly exercising force to make others comply.

 

The only climate change we need to fear is the start of the next Ice Age.

The Fake Climate Record

Tony Heller became a catastrophic man-made global warming opponent soon after he started looking at the US temperature records back in 2006.  His Real Climate Science blog has revealed many aspects of the fraudulent manipulation of data.  He recently recorded a video which provides an excellent overview on the fake temperature records used to change a slowly cooling US temperature trend into a rather strong warming trend.  I will summarize a few key observations he makes and add some discussion.

There is actual measured data at various times going back to 1895 from various subsets of the 1,218 weather stations in the US Historical Climatology Network and then there is the data reported to the public, which has been highly manipulated.  The manipulated data is reported for 1,218 stations, whether those stations existed or were active at the time or not!  First, consider the 1895 to 2023 average daily high temperature for the months June through August for those stations which actually measured the temperature:

The actual reported temperature measurements show a decrease in this summer maximum temperature of about 0.5 degree Fahrenheit from 1895 to 2023 using a least squares linear fit to the data.

Now, here is the data reported to the public based on both those stations that actually reported data and those that did not, but who have been phantom members of the US Historical Climatology Network over varying periods of time, often many decades.  Actual reported data has been manipulated and the data for non-reporting stations has been generated by computer models that assume that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes a 2 degree Fahrenheit temperature increase per century.  Also, the computer model actually propagates urban heat island temperature increases onto the non-reporting stations.

The final result of this massive temperature data manipulation is a least-squares linear temperature increase from 1895 to 2023 of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit.  A temperature decrease of 0.5 degree F to an increase of 1.2 degree F has been created to fuel the catastrophic man-made global warming fraud.

Tony Heller provides us with a graph showing the manipulated data minus the actual measured data in this graph:

The blue line shows that before about 2010, the temperature record was lowered relative to the actual measurements by as much as 1.5 degree F.  Through about half the total period, the temperature was lowered by 1 degree F or more.  Scientifically, if the actual measurements are so bad that adjustments of this scale are needed, then all of the data is meaningless and useless as far as the issue of whether there is or is not significant man-made global warming. If manipulations of this scale are needed, then the game is over and we have no historical record at all.  The clock is at time zero and a reliable and comprehensive climate station network needs to be constructed and maintained for a century to create the data to see if there actually is any trendline on US and on global temperatures.

At this point in time, a slowly falling temperature seems more believable than a temperature increase rate which is 2.2 times greater than the measured decrease.  I say this based on my belief in actual measurements, but also because I believe that carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations at anywhere near present levels do not cause significant temperature increases as the CO2 concentration increases.  Indeed, additional CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be causing a very slight temperature decrease at present levels.  The warming as a result of CO2 is mostly caused by the first few 10s of ppm.  I wrote about my concern about these cooling effects of carbon dioxide back in 2010.

As Tony Heller points out, the reporting of data for 1,218 stations when many fewer stations have commonly reported measured data is one of the most important degrees of freedom that the manipulators have to recreate a biased temperature record.  Here are the number of stations that reported June to August data historically:

From 1895 to about 1920, the number of stations increased very rapidly, allowing the manipulators to create much station temperature data that existed only in their fervent imaginations. The rate of increase in stations until 1989 was pretty substantial also.  Then after 1989, there has been a very rapid decrease in stations to about 805 stations.  The measured data that is presently going into the data manipulation mill operated by the US federal government is 66% of the stations assigned maximum daily temperatures for June to August.  34% of the stations are "reporting" completely fraudulent data from computer programs with a strong warming bias.  The data from the 66% of stations actually making measurements is also manipulated, though with smaller deviations from reality than that assigned to the non-reporting stations.

The federal government has invested hundreds of billions of dollars into what it calls Climate Science or efforts to mitigate a global crisis of its own invention.  Its funding of research into climate science has set real climate science knowledge back decades.  Its bias for a catastrophic man-made global warming crisis has corrupted the scientific method within this field of study.  Tens of thousands of research papers have been written which are laced with total nonsense.  Many of those papers have valuable results soiled by surrounding nonsense, which will mean that it will be very difficult to believe the valid results.  

But science has not been the only casualty.  The federal government has created a gigantic special interest group (industries, academics, media, environmental groups, and government agencies) seeking money and attention from federal, state, and local governments, not to mention frightened Americans.  Company after company, probably tens of thousands of them, have been created to address the fraudulent problems resulting from the falsified hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming.  The amount of mal-invested human effort is staggering.  The damage to our nation's productivity is a horrible tragedy.  And much of the cost of this will fall on Americans of lower income, many of whom have put too much trust in the leaders of American governments.

Should Joe Biden win a second term, this fraud will continue without abatement.  This grievous con game is strongly supported by the Democratic Party.  If Donald Trump wins a second term, this calumny will at least be constrained.  Trump did not do as good a job of this in his first term as he ought to have.  I sure hope he will do better in his second term, should he get one. At least he states clearly that he does not believe in catastrophic man-made global warming.

A Big Picture Reminder on Climate Change

We are in the brief warm period of the Pleistocene Ice Age called the Holocene.  We are constantly being told that a 1.5C temperature increase means the end of human civilization.  In order to prevent that, we must embrace a substantial decrease in our standard of living.  Let us examine the temperature record of the past and where we stand amid the temperature cycles of natural forces:

 

The claim that a 1.5C temperature increase means the end of humanity might be tempered against the catastrophe of a 8 - 11C temperature decrease that appears to await mankind in the not too distant future.  In comparison, the warming would be welcome.  Actually, such a warming would likely do more good than harm even compared to our present temperatures.

Should the natural temperature drop of past ice age cycles occur, mankind will find it most difficult to maintain a human population anywhere near 8 billion human souls as food production will surely shrink.  Let us have warmth as long as possible!

Phillip Pilkington: The green-energy bubble is about to burst — and thanks to Biden, taxpayers will suffer

Phillip Pilkington has written an admirably rational evaluation of the IRA, the fragility of the renewable energy industry, and the horrible consequences for the American people. I recommend reading his NY Post opinion article entitled The green-energy bubble is about to burst -- and thanks to Biden, taxpayers will suffer.

This calamity is perpetrated based on the failed hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. That hypothesis has made prediction after prediction that failed actual observation. By the scientific method, this means the hypothesis is itself false.

This is not surprising, since the physics behind the argument is wrong. Additions of CO2 to the atmosphere do not provide added warming at present levels of CO2, since its cooling effects are about equal to the warming effects at the present CO2 concentrations. Almost everyone ignores the cooling effects. Modest warming would actually be good. Added atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to plant growth and therefore to all animal life, including humans.

How can so many scientists and economists get so much wrong? But they sure have. Note that contrary to claims, there is no real consensus. Only warming projections get published, but even those projections do not agree well with one another. This is not consensus. This is confusion. It is proof of ignorance.

Independence Day Sullied by a Climate Change Lying Attack Upon Our Independence

The media has been abuzz with claims that this 4th of July was the hottest 4th of July ever.  Given the well-known heat waves of 1936 and 1966, along with memories of many other summers hotter than I have experienced in recent years, I was pretty sure this was one more in a long list of desperate lies to try and keep the myth of catastrophic man-made global warming alive.  It is that myth which the Biden administration, the Democratic Party in general, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and many a kleptocracy have been using as a justification for attacking the many and broad rights of the individual to promote a collectivist lowering of the standard of living of all mankind.  Independence Day is anathema to these people, so it must have been very tempting to turn it into an object lesson for catastrophic man-made (man guilty) global warming.

The vigilant CO2 Coalition has looked into the claims that this 4th of July was the hottest 4th of July ever.  Using the data available in the U. S. Historical Climatology Network, NOAA NCEI, for the Lower 48 US states, the maximum average temperature among the weather stations is for the 4th of July:

This chart does not have the 4 July 2023 data point yet, since NOAA apparently has not yet provided such recent data.  Let us suppose that 4 July 2023 actually was the hottest recorded US 4th of July, though I suspect that is not the case.  That would only be significant for the claim of catastrophic man-made global warming if it were part of a 4th of July warming trend.  Now, despite the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere throughout the period 1890 to 2022, the maximum average temperature on the 4th of July has been nearly constant over the 1895 to 2022 period of time.  The trend line has actually shown a small decrease with time!

The CO2 Coalition has provided us with another way of looking at the temperature record for the 4th of July:

This chart shows the percentage of the weather stations recording temperatures greater than 100F on the 4th of July from 1895 to 2022.  This percentage also has a downward trendline.  

If the temperatures of the U.S. 4th of Julys have a story to tell, it is that the U.S. is slowly cooling.  If CO2 is the thermostat controlling the climate, then the cooling effects of CO2 have become dominant over increased warming effects at the concentrations reached by about 1950.  This would imply that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 for which its warming effect reaches a maximum is about 310 ppm.  Above that concentration, additional atmospheric CO2 causes cooling. Of course, choosing a single day of the year is not the best way to determine whether the U.S. is warming or cooling over more than 12 decades.  But it is a much better indicator than the one single 4th of July of one year that the priests of catastrophic man-made global warming have offered the world as proof of global warming due to man's CO2 emissions.

The catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has been proven false many, many times.  It is based on a misunderstanding of thermal radiation, the ignorance of CO2 cooling effects, poor surface temperature records, misguided temperature record manipulations, a wanton neglect of the benefits of atmospheric CO2, an overestimation of the economic harms of warming, and a fervor to reduce mankind's ability to use the resources of the Earth to improve the human standard of living.

Yet Americans continue to leave northern states for the warming climates of southern states.  Apparently, humans prosper in warmth.  Imagine that.

Washington Post: Italian farmers are facing 'stomach-churching' heat and dryness

The erudite Washington Post, Protector of Democracy from Death in Darkness, reveals its environmentalist religious fervor in a front-page, above the fold article on a hot and dry spell in parts of Italy that is destroying the rice crop yields in the risotto heartland.

Note the secondary headline:  "Farmers in risotto heartland are facing 'stomach-churching' heat and dryness"

Yet in the fourth paragraph of the text, the Italian farmer says "It's stomach-churning."

No where in the article do the authors claim that this heat and dryness is the result of catastrophic man-made global warming.  There is actually a map in the article that shows that much of Italy is wetter than usual, just as much is drier than usual.  That map is not mentioned in the text at all.  The chef of a restaurant near the Rizzotti farm is quoted as saying, "As far as I am concerned, this is the beginning of a series of crises that will happen again and again."  She is perhaps implying that this event is due to catastrophic man-made global warming.

But, the authors wisely make no such claim.  This is the case more and more often I find.  The catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has suffered such severe scientific failure that the religious environmentalists that want the idea to take firm hold of the minds of the people can themselves no longer risk their reputations on claiming it is scientifically validated.  Now, they set up cherry-picked articles for which they know the response of many people will be to assume that the ill event was caused by catastrophic man-made global warming.  This article is one such example.  It serves the political purposes of those who wish to return to the Medieval Period, however.

The article is a stomach-churning example of the stomach-churching environmentalists expressing their religious fervor for their irrational cause.  As the churches of the Medieval Period were in opposition to the scientific method, so too are the stomach-churching environmentalists.

USA Gasoline Price Skyrockets in Accordance with Democrat Energy Policy

 The USA average gasoline price from June 2020 to June 2022 is charted below:

For the last 6 months of 2020, the price of gasoline averaged about $2.20/gal.  The outcome of the 2020 election put the Democrats solidly in control of US energy policy.   The Democrats were really going to be able to pursue their long-stated goal of seeking the death of the American oil and gas industry, since they controlled the Presidency and both houses of the Congress.  The oil and gas industry had no choice but to respond with drastic investment caution as the Democrats canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline once again, canceled oil and gas leases, and put huge tracts of US land with great deposits of oil and gas off limits for development.  Over time, it also became clear that the government was canceling many other environmental permits actually needed to produce oil from existing oil leases and that it was generally preventing the building of new oil and gas pipelines.

Keeping oil and gas production in the US at a constant level requires a constant investment of effort and money.  This is even more true now that so much of our production is due to fracking.  The inevitable result of the Democrat anti-carbon fuel policies was that the US oil and gas industry was not willing to invest enough money to increase production enough to keep gasoline prices low.  The Democrats made it too hard to do so and any investment the oil and gas industry made was subject to later annihilation as the Democrats pursued their stated goal to kill the oil and gas industry.

The Democrats and the Federal Reserve also proceeded to flood the economy with new money.  The Treasury Department money presses printed money day and night, without pause.  The employees manning the presses and verifying the paper and ink ingredients were virtually flogged to print record amounts of new money.  Congress passed major spending bills and the Federal Reserve pursued its own money supply expansion policies.  The result was that the measure of the money supply called M2 increased rapidly from June 2021 to January 2022.  This generated a general price increase in almost all goods and services.  Oil and gas products could not be an exception.

Biden and the Democrats keep claiming these factors are not the cause of the gas price increases.  They say they were caused by increased demand as the economy recovered from Covid-19 and by Putin.  The economy was recovering, but the oil and gas industry had been readily able to supply an economy of equal size prior to the Covid-19 contraction.  Despite the Democrats, the oil and gas industry has steadily increased the number of active oil rigs since the minimum in the July to September 2020 period.  But, the number presently employed is still not as many as were employed prior to the Covid-19 downturn.  Democrat policies make banks and other lenders unwilling to lend money to the oil and gas industry and their own investors have reason to exercise extra caution in pursuing only the most lucrative projects with supporting infrastructure already in place.

As for Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that effect is responsible for the spike on the gas price curve, but note that there appears to be a rapid price increase before and after that spike that seems to be based at least mostly on other factors in play prior to the Russian invasion.

The increase in gasoline and diesel fuel prices are deleterious for our entire economy.  Add these to the high price increases in almost all goods and services, and many Americans are struggling to get by.  Americans with low incomes are hurting the most.  The Democrats say they care, but they do not care the least little bit.  They are determined to pursue their expensive oil and gas price policies with an aim to murder the oil and gas industry, no matter how many Americans are hurt.

After all, they claim it is because carbon dioxide emissions by man are an existential threat to the planet.  I have demolished that argument many times on this blog.  Others have also shown the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis to have failed in its scientific predictions.  On the basis of the scientific method, this Democrat argument holds no water, but they cling to it as though it is a religion.  It is a truth that people have chosen to annihilate millions of others due to their differing religions or lack thereof, so it is hardly surprising that Democrats of the catastrophic man-made global warming religion are very willing to do great harm to the standard of living of many, many of their fellow countrymen and of many in the developing world who desperately need the advantages of affordable oil and gas.

Those who hunger for ever-increasing power are willing to use that power brutally.  The Democrats are demonstrating that general truism by driving up the cost of our goods and services while leaving our incomes behind the curve.  This is just one more instance showing the foolishness of those many Americans deceived into believing the Democrats were the "kind" party.  Constant expressions of caring about others are a sign that someone is trying very hard to pull the wool over the eyes of the naïve.  This has been the one thing that Democrats have been very accomplished at doing.  Dealing with reality is another thing entirely.

The SEC Proposes Rule on Infrared-Absorbing Gas Emissions and Climate Risk

The SEC wants to force publicly traded businesses to predict how climate change might harm their businesses and how they might be a cause of global warming themselves.  They proposed rules for such on Monday, 21 March 2022.

Few companies are themselves expert in predicting the future climate or future weather.  They are being asked to use the available scientific knowledge about future climate and future weather. They also have to use this available scientific knowledge about the role that emissions of infrared-absorbing gases, commonly called greenhouse gases, will have on these future climate and weather conditions.  What is more, they are to be forced to predict how governments in the USA will limit and condition their operations based on fears of climate change.  Still worse, they are to be forced to make predictions of how people and nations around the world will respond to fears of climate change.

All of these requirements are proposed within a framework of censored science and of poor science with a very wide range of predictions, most of which predict much larger effects due to infrared-absorbing gases then have actually been observed.  For instance, temperature increases and the frequency of bad weather events have consistently failed to live up to the predictions of the greenhouse gas climate scare-mongers.  How can a company predict what the effect of global warming and increased bad weather events will be on its operations when the published, rubbish science cannot predict what the relation between infrared-absorbing gas emissions and subsequent warming and nasty weather events will be?  The reality, which the Democrats who have proposed these SEC rules ignore, is that increased infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere has a very, very small effect in causing additional warming.  The requirement, however, will be that companies will have to make their predictions based on exaggerated warming and bad weather events in line with the climate scare-mongers.

The climate fright-masters will no doubt also require that companies make these exaggerated effect predictions based on exaggerated negative effects upon their own business.  These predictions will also have to be based on some exaggerated overall effects upon the US economy and on the world economy.  They will also assume that many nations will long continue to raise the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations due to lax regulations limiting their emissions.  Exaggerated individual company effects will justify further exaggerations of the general negative effects upon the US and the world economies.

The effort for a company to perform these predictions honestly would be tremendous.  Honest predictions have nothing to do with the purpose of the proposed SEC regulations, however.  Formulas will be adopted for this purpose, which the publicly traded companies will be forced to adhere to.

So why is this being done?  The reason is that every publicly traded company is to be made to appear to believe in catastrophic man-made global warming and to take it seriously.  This in turn is to rachet up the fear that Americans have of catastrophic man-made global warming.  The self-reporting of company activities that might be affected by bad and warming weather and of company gas emissions will also give the government further information it can twist into a story of future disaster.  That disaster story will then allow even more regulation of businesses, no doubt expanding far beyond those that are publicly traded.

Catastrophic man-made global warming due to adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere given its present composition is a failed hypothesis.  For Democrats and some Republicans, this is not a reason not to use the fear of it to justify ever-increasing governmental controls over our lives.  Governmental controls are always resisted by the people, unless they are afraid of something.  Catastrophic man-made global warming is another such fear-creating tool.  The claim that businesses generally want to do harm to people has long been such a tool and is still at play in this SEC proposed rule as well.

Inflation and its Effects are Worse than Most People Think

You know that the government's consumer price index leaped up to 7.9% in February, compared to a year ago.  We have all heard that this is its highest level in 40 years.  Frequently, the government likes to remove the effects of food and energy prices, because they can fluctuate greatly and because they affect the non-elites the most.  That gasless, foodless inflation rate leaves an inflation rate of 6.4% for February compared to a year earlier.  The Producer Price Index went up even more at 9.7% compared to a year ago.  This promises price increases going forward.

Barron's has stripped out all the costs except those that are not necessary goods for everyone.  Essential foods, housing, gasoline, and utilities constitute these necessary core items.  The inflation rate for these critical items for February was 16%.

Since then, about one-tenth of the world's oil and about a quarter of the exported wheat has vanished, thanks to the Russian invasion of the Breadbasket of Europe, namely Ukraine.

It is not enough that less than wealthy Americans lost their jobs and small businesses in horrific waves of brutal Covid-19 mandates.  Now the senseless over-spending of the Biden administration and the Democrat-controlled Senate and House of Representatives has drastically diluted the value of the dollar.  The same Americans most hurt by the Chinese Communist Party generated and released Covid-19, the Democrat fear-driven response of mandates directed at small businesses, and the rising energy costs due to the irrational belief in catastrophic man-made global warming are being slammed to Earth. 

The Democrats are brutally unfeeling and staggeringly irrational.  About half of all Americans voted for them and gave them the power to do this this evil work.  Many of them are now the greatest victims of the Democrat misuse of their rule.

The Terror of Carbon Dioxide Induced Human Extinction and the Dismal Ideology

 Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute conducted a survey of 2,000 likely American voters from 29 April to 3 May 2021 on the issue of climate change.  The poll found that 55% of likely voters believe that climate change is primarily caused by humans, while 45% believed it was primarily caused by long-term planetary trends.

Numerous Democrat politicians, bureaucrats, and media pundits have informed us for several decades that humans or the Earth face an existential threat if mankind does not cease to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere within 10 - 12 years.  To date, this existential threat has proven about as dangerous and catastrophic as a newborn puppy.

The Rasmussen - Heartland poll asked likely voters to identify themselves as Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, or the Not Sure category I hate, since one may be very sure of one's ideology but simply not fit into the other choices.  The poll found that 21% of likely voters who consider themselves to be Moderate and 21% who are Liberal believe that if global carbon dioxide emissions continue at a rate comparable to that of the last decade, then humans will become extinct or nearly extinct due to climate change within 50 years.  For Conservatives, only 12% believe this early demise for humans due to climate change.  OK, that 12% is still an absurd portion of Conservatives.  52% of Liberals believe human extinction or near extinction will occur within the next 100 years.  43% of Moderates agree, while 23% of Conservatives agree.

There are tens of millions of Americans who ascribe to each of these ideologies.  Even 23% of Conservatives are many millions of Americans who face the dismal prospect of human extinction or near extinction within 100 years.  Yet, how much more dismal is the ideology that has 52% of those ascribing to it in a state of terror, presumably, of human extinction within 100 years?  Would such believers want to have children even, or if they did, would they not be irresponsible?  Perhaps this belief is a meaningful factor in the falling birthrate of Americans documented by the last couple of census reports.  If it is, then the reproduction of Liberals should be significantly lower than that of Conservatives!

Further results of the poll show that Liberals are much more likely to exaggerate the amount of warming that has occurred since the late 1800s.  60% of them believe there has been more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit warming.  In comparison, 36% of Conservatives believe warming has exceeded 3 degrees.  Even NOAA's exaggerated warming since the 1880 to 1900 average is only 2.14 degrees Fahrenheit.  Such warming would be far more beneficial than harmful.  More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the present concentration has virtually no warming effect and is great for plant growth.  This in no catastrophe.

This is only one example of the many ways in which Liberals have a dreary, dismal worldview.  It fits nicely with a belief in other dismal viewpoints such as systemic racism, the belief that some ethnic groups are incompetent to manage their own lives, the denial of the ability of humans to improve their standard of living by living productive lives, and the believe that humans are always a threat to the environment in myriad ways.  It has to make a life miserable to be such an ingrained pessimist.  This goes way beyond seeing a glass as half empty instead of half full.  This is a determination to see the glass which is really full as being almost empty.  It is a consistent denial of reality.

 

There are myriad reasons why I am voting for Donald Trump

The principal question politically is which candidate is likely to perform better as a protector of my many and broad individual rights to life, liberty, property, freedom of contract, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom to trade, freedom to defend myself from violence, and freedom to my privacy.  I want to be allowed to choose my own values and to be allowed to manage my own life in accordance with my self-chosen values.  I find that present governments are the main threat to my exercise of my rights and the main source of violence and the threat of violence to keep me from rationally managing my own life.  This is not to say that I oppose government in principle.  I do believe that government is necessary to the protection of my individual rights and to a civilized society that will allow me to flourish as the manager of my own life.  However, the federal government and at least almost every state government have taken on many functions that violate my rights and those of others and that do not allow us to rationally manage our own lives.  The governments of the United States of America are badly in need of a massive reduction of their powers.

Neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden (Kamala Harris) will provide a legitimate and proper government.  Given the preferences of most Americans, that would be impossible even if one of them were so inclined.  However, there are leagues and leagues of distance between these candidates respecting the exercise of governmental power and the resulting range over which its threats of violence will roam in the lives of the American people.  

The President will bring with him a party, from which he will draw advisors and managers for the exceedingly powerful Executive Branch of the government.  The Democratic Party is the party of greater racism, corruption, demagoguery, contempt for the American citizen, pessimism and fear, anti-business hatred, distrust in freedom of speech and conscience, and lust for power.  It was the party of slavery, of Jim Crow laws, of the KKK, of opposition to ending school segregation, the greater number who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, highly inadequate public schools in the inner cities, inadequate police protection in the inner cities, claims that Black Americans can neither achieve educational success nor financial success in the free market, advocates group identity politics with all of its divisiveness, and has over and over implied that any Black American who is independent minded is not Black and is a sell-out.  The Democrats have long been the kings of voter fraud, violators of the rule of law, more inclined to govern for the sake of special interests, the associates of union thugs who are usually either Mafia or Communists, and the most willing to seek further powers to shake down the American people.  The Democrats think most so-called Blacks and Latinos are incompetent to manage their own lives and that all so-called whites but the college educated are rednecks, or even that every white person is a racist.  The Democrat Party is the party that does not admit that the best way to raise everyone's standard of living is to allow the free market to function and raise our productivity so that the economy grows with a compounded higher growth rate.  It is the party that has the greater fear of every chemical, disease, or human act that has any effect upon the environment, to the point that it has become anti-human in its suppression of our efforts to be productive.  It is the party that has the broader and more intense distrust of businesses and the freedom of association of the free market.  It has become the party most inclined to suppress freedom of speech, as witness its control of college campuses, the elderly media, the Silicon Valley Internet businesses, and the regulations it has imposed on businesses.  It has systematically interfered with individual's freedom of religion by shutting down church operations during the pandemic and with requirements that people support abortions and contraceptives against their will and religious beliefs.

Biden was never very smart to begin with.  He is clearly losing mental capability.  He does not know whether is he is running for the President or the Senate.  He does not know what state he is in.  He is campaigning against someone named George, we do not know whether that George is HW or W.  He cannot remember that thing, you know, who gave us our individual rights according to the Declaration of Independence.  When he retained some cogency years ago, he claimed the Declaration of Independence was not a part of our laws.  This is expected from Democrats, who do not want our Constitution to have a philosophical basis in political governance.  Without that, the Constitution is more malleable.  Biden stops work in the morning, not having the energy to go on.  Some Democrats will not mind replacing him with Kamala Harris, a decidedly socialist Senators.  However, Sen. Harris could not get very far in her own presidential campaign and dropped out early since she could not perform well in even her home state of California.  President Trump was smarter to begin with and has retained his intelligence and energy.

Biden is an inveterate liar.  Yes, Trump exaggerates.  But Trump has never told a whopper of the size that Biden did when Biden claims over and over that all of the people who died because of the Chinese Communist Party coronavirus were killed by Trump.  They were actually killed by the virus with help from the Chinese Communist Party and some Democratic governors who put sick people in elderly care facilities.  Biden plagiarized a paper in law school.  He claimed he was the best political science student, when he was far from it.  He claimed he was first in his law class when he was not even average.  He claimed that his life was that of Neil Kinnoch, the British Labor Leader in a heavily plagiarized speech Biden gave in his first presidential campaign.

Biden is not a nice man.  He likes to tell his audiences that he is brighter than any of them, though that is often unlikely.  When challenged on an issue, he is inclined to invite a man to meet him behind the gym for a fight.  Or he may just call you a "lying dog-faced pony soldier."  Biden claims he is the Democratic Party.  Apparently all other Democrats do not count.  He has claimed that his mentor in the Senate was Robert Byrd, the segregationist.  Indeed, Delaware was one of the segregationist states sued in Brown v. Board of Education, that ended public school segregation under the Eisenhower administration.  By the way, Gen. Eisenhower pushed hard for the desegregation of the Army during WWII and continued to push it when he was President.  Senator Biden came along too late to play a role in the segregationist policies of Delaware, but he was opposed to busing and was clearly sympathetic with the old segregationist members of the Democratic Party.  Opposition to busing was often justified, but there is today no tolerance for that opposition in the socialist Democratic Party.

Biden runs a family based crime syndicate, which is a bit less sophisticated than that run by the Clintons.  He and his family are paid huge sums of money by evil foreigners, especially oligarchs from Russia, Kazakhstan, and the Chinese Communist Party.  It is wrong to do business with such people and I am quite sure that they have their hooks deep into his depraved soul.  With Russia and China very much opposed to the well-being of the USA, he would be a seriously compromised President.  His past policies with respect to both Russia and China were much too accommodating to them.

The Democratic Party has its power base in the education establishment, the media, the labor unions, and in some ethnic groups that have tended to vote heavily for the Democrats very contrary to their actual rational interest.  Perhaps the most broadly important of these power bases is the control of the education system as a result of a largely government run school and university education system.  Even private schools are heavily controlled by government in their curricula, financing of students, operational requirements beyond teaching, and as a source for grant money.  In at least most government-run schools, the teachers are not professional managers of 20 to 30 students at a time, but merely blue collar workers incapable of management functions and of negotiating their own salaries and working conditions by their choice of socialist labor union representation.  The schools are operated primarily for the purpose of indoctrinating youth to want expanded government as the solution to every problem and for the benefit of the socialist labor union.  Such an education system does not equip students with the knowledge and independent thinking skills they need to become the watchdogs of their individual rights and the opponents of excessive, illegitimate government.  In most cases these students do not receive an adequate education in writing, reading, math, science, history, economics, civics, and philosophy.  Joe Biden strongly supports the limited and twisted education that government and socialist labor unions are willing to provide.  President Trump recognizes such a education as a terrible problem and wants to provide everyone with school choice.

Biden and the Democrats want to kill the Right to Work Laws throughout the nation by federal law.  The very idea that anyone has to allow someone else to represent him in his negotiations with management for the sale of his labor is an abomination.  That he then has to pay union dues to the agent that usurped his right to sell his own labor makes this still worse.  Most Americans, even most in the states without Right to Work, favor Right to Work legislation.  The Democrats favor rules that do not even allow most workers at a business to vote on whether they will be represented by a union or not.  They favor rapid elections that do not allow workers or management in opposition to effectively make their argument.  They support union votes that are not based on secret ballots.  They support union exceptions that allow union thugs to intimate and even beat up workers who do not want to join a union or who oppose union aims.  Trump has no such desire to give labor unions this kind of control over our lives.

Biden wants to have the USA rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, which will have a devastating effect on a booming energy export business for Americans based on the failed catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis.  They claim that doing so is based on science, which is a blatant lie.  The global computer models are now in the 6th generation and they have always made wrong predictions and they have not even shown signs of improvement.  The reason is because the physics input into the models is wrong, as I have shown on this blog repeatedly.  But you do not even have to know enough physics to understand my arguments.  All you have to know is that any theory that makes wrong predictions is wrong.  This is a basic principle of the scientific method.  One cannot claim that catastrophic man-made global warming is consensus science when it is not science at all.  In addition, carbon dioxide is a very beneficial plant fertilizer and a 1.5K increase in temperature would cause more good than harm, contrary to the heated claims of the U.N. and others.  Trump has enough sense not to believe in the claims and to see that the Paris Climate Accord will do more harm than good to Americans.

Biden wants to transition the energy sector away from coal, oil, and gas, claiming they are polluting and destructive because they result in carbon dioxide emissions.  He says he will make them net-zero emitters of carbon dioxide in four years, by 2025.  To do that, he has to make their operations vastly more expensive.  In doing so, he is willing to put millions of Americans out of work, cause the cost of energy to skyrocket for both residential and commercial use, cause our transportation costs to go up greatly, force the use of expensive, light frame, short-range vehicles loaded with heavy batteries with short life-times and inconvenient recharging schedules, and force a crash program to build massive farms of wind generators and solar panels which produce unreliable and expensive energy.  The alternative energy developments will rely on government using force to make the costs of coal, oil, and gas become much greater by making them pay to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  The wind generators will kill ever greater numbers of birds and bats, require incredible amounts of concrete to anchor them whose production emits massive loads carbon dioxide, and require massive mining projects to obtain the required rare earth elements, copper, iron for steel production, plastic resin for the carbon fiber blades, and lithium for backup storage batteries.  The solar panels will require massive plants to make the photovoltaic materials, many of which are highly toxic, and the mining of much silver and copper.  Oh, and by the way, the Democrats really hate mining and toxic chemicals, so as the required massive production gets underway, they will put on the brakes, leaving us with much less power from coal, oil, and gas and not nearly enough energy to replace their lost production with.

Biden wants to increase our taxes and the burden of taxes on everyone.  Yes, he says he will only increase taxes on those making over $400,000 per year and on businesses.  I suspect that his rationale for saying this is that the Trump tax cut for individuals is going to expire and he is going to see to it that it is not extended.  So, he will not raise your taxes, because the the Democrats already insured that the Trump tax cut for individuals had an expiration date.  So, everyone who paid more taxes prior to the Trump tax cut, will pay more soon again.  Then additional taxes will be piled on people making over $400,000 a year and on corporations.  Many people who pay over $400,000 in taxes do so because their business income is taxed on their personal income tax.  The more money taken by government from businesses, the less money businesses have to expand, improve their productivity, train their employees, hire new employees, pay state and local taxes, pay their employees better, and work to raise our standard of living.  Meanwhile, government will take this money and pay its expanded well-paid bureaucracy, hire contractors with good government connections, force the contractors to use union labor, apply the money to political advantage, and deliver a product of low quality.  Basically, a tax on any of us, is a tax on all of us, except for a favored few who will make out like bandits.  The cost of living will rise with far too little to show for it.  Trump would like to lower our taxes and most definitely to extend the individual tax rate cut.

Consistent with the fearful and the anti-business mentalities that dominate the Democratic Party, Joe Biden and the Democrats want to keep business, the schools, and other functions in which people congregate such as churches shut down until the Chinese Communist Party coronavirus somehow disappears.  They have little regard for how many businesses are destroyed, how many workers become unemployed, how many children and young people fall behind in their education, how religious freedom is curtailed, how many people do not go to doctors when they need to do so, how many people become severely depressed, how many people commit suicide, become alcoholics, or use other harmful drugs.  Their fear, fed by the media and the socialist education system, dominates all.  President Trump understands that most people, excepting some elderly and some people with other medical problems, generally need to return to normal productive activities.

In the name of group identity politics and the designation of some groups as inherently racist, as the Democrats now often claim all white people are, the Democratic Party has readily welcomed demonstrations in the streets, even as they have shut down or tried to shut down almost all other gatherings of Americans.  Going beyond this, they generally tolerated actual violence for a long while, until it became clear that most Americans were repulsed by the violence and the Democrats began to fear the effects of this on their fate in the upcoming 2020 elections.  It has been Trump who has been far more concerned with the effects of the violence on personal security and property destruction, much of which was especially hurting many small business owners, many of whom were in poorer areas of cities.  In every case, such violence and property destruction drive up the costs of business operation, increase prices, and result in less employment in cities where this is very harmful to many inhabitants.

The Democrats and Biden effectively want to cripple the people's ability to defend themselves from the violence that Democrat controlled government does not want to protect them from.  They are strongly determined to constrict or even to squash our 2nd Amendment rights.  Trump stands firm on this constitutional right to have the means to defend oneself and one's family.

Biden is advocating a massive infrastructure expenditure geared to create union jobs.  He wants to pay for more zero-emission mass transit in every American city with 100,000 or more inhabitants.  Even traditional mass transit has always lost money in astounding amounts in American cities.  He wants to build more bicycle paths.  He will have the government build a network of electric vehicle recharging stations, apparently so you can get halfway there and spend a few hours recharging and then get back on the road again.  Somehow or other, he will have us building electric vehicles in this program too.  He is going to spend money on the energy infrastructure itself, which apparently means the government will own the energy infrastructure.  What could go wrong with that?  He is somehow going to upgrade 4 million buildings and weatherize 2 million homes.  He will install more energy efficient windows and appliances.  He is going to build 1.5 million sustainable homes.  He will have a program for environmental justice, whatever that is.  Except, the money to do these things will really come out of your pocket, some way or the other, and mean that you cannot use that money to do what you wanted to do with it.

Biden shows his economic ignorance, or is it willingness to do great harm to many in his pursuit of demagogic influence upon the economically ignorant, in advocating a $15/hour national minimum wage.  There should not be a minimum wage established by any level of government.  That is an interference with everyone's freedom of association and freedom to earn a living.  The fact that one would have difficulty having one job and being the soul worker in a family of four and living on a wage of less than $15/hour is irrelevant.  It is especially young people who are under-educated who need a chance to prove they can be a reliable worker and are willing to learn on the job who need jobs that pay less than what a worker who has a family to support would need to earn.  Minimum wages hurt those who most need to work, but have the lowest skills to offer.  Minimum wage laws are especially loved by labor unions who want to exclude competing workers from the market by using the force of government.  After all, those union workers have to earn more so they can pay a large sum to the labor union bosses, who in turn need to use much of it to buy off the Democrat politicians who give great power to the union bosses.  Yet while minimum wage laws are always harmful, they are especially harmful at the national level.  A minimum wage of $15/hour is less harmful in New York City or San Francisco than it is in Muddy Gap, Wyoming, Magnolia, Mississippi, or Loco Hills, New Mexico.  Of course, Democrats are very happy to destroy these low cost of living small towns.  Trump cares about the rural areas, the small towns, and the low cost of living areas much more than does Biden.

Biden does not believe our legislators need to read a bill before they vote on it.  He was happy to go along with the ObamaCare atrocity that made us buy insurance we did not want or need.  He was went along with the lie that ObamaCare did not have a tax in it, but then it did when the Supreme Court torturously ruled it constitutional because it had a tax in it.  He went along with the lie that you could keep your insurance if you wanted and keep your doctor if you wanted.  Then there was the lie that ObamaCare would save a family of four $2500 a year.  Under ObamaCare health care cost have doubled.  In many areas of the country, there is one and only one plan available, but that is of no concern to the Democrats who rule the cities where that is not true.  It is only Republican rural areas with totally monopoly ObamaCare.

Biden intends to set up a Blue Panel Committee to provide him with cover to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.  Biden and the Democrats believe the courts should be free to set policy, abrogating the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to do that.  Trump, on the other hand has appointed three Supreme Court Justices who recognize the division of powers in the Constitution and know that the function of the federal courts is to see that the rule of the laws of Congress duly instituted is to be enforced in the justice system.  Amy Coney Barrett may be his crowning appointment.

The Obama/Biden administration was the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.  It had the largest government apparatus to corrupt.  It had a bureaucracy that was composed of well over 90% Democrats operating in Washington, DC where any government employee crime had to be tried before a court whose jury was sure to be 95% composed of Democrats, who would never find any Democrat guilty of any crime that was aiding the Democratic Party.  But, Republicans beware the DC justice system.

The Obama/Biden administration supplied drug lords with weapons.  They rewarded Senator John Kerry with the State Department after he used his Senate seat power to threaten drug companies and other companies with harmful legislation if they did not pay him off.  He used insider information to make investments that paid him very well.  Following his time in the State Department, they gave the position to Sen. Hillary Clinton, who used her position to fill the Clinton Foundation with money, much of which was used for family expenses.  The Obama/Biden administration used the IRS to heavily discriminate against Tea Party and limited government organizations that applied for tax exempt status, greatly suppressing their effectiveness in the 2012 election.  No one was ever prosecuted for this, despite one official responsible having had many meetings with Obama, which were surely due to his coordinating the effort.

Under the Obama/Biden administration the NSA very widely spied on Americans, contrary to the law.  The head of the NSA lied to Congress about this.  The administration promulgated the lie that the riot and attack against the American ambassador in Benghazi, Libya was because some guy in America had shown a video on the Internet.  They claimed they could not rescue the Ambassador and the CIA and State Dept. men protecting him, when they really acted with such negligence and indecision that they could not then provide a rescue.  This was a dark moment in U.S. history.

The Obama/Biden administration pursued the most dastardly agendas in U.S. history in trying to prevent the election of Donald Trump in 2016.  They used the FBI, the Director of the CIA, the Director of National Intelligence, and numerous Democrats in the Department of Justice to frame people in the Trump campaign as collaborators with the Russians.  They lied to the FISA courts in order to spy on the Trump campaign and then on his transition team.  This was far worse than Watergate.  For three years they used Russian collaboration claims to distract the Trump administration and to discredit it in the eyes of many Americans who could not see through the lies of the Democrats and the elderly, obsolete media, academia, and their fellow travelers.  Yet, it was long ago clear that it was Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the Obama/Biden administration that were in league with the Russian disinformation apparatus.  It was the Democrats who undermined the federal government in the interest of Russia and very much to the harm of the American people.  When the Russia hoax fell apart, they then created the Ukraine hoax for the impeachment of Trump.  This also fell apart, but served as a huge distraction and to create much disharmony among Americans.

Many libertarians fault Donald Trump for not entering into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, though he has since entered into a number of bilateral trade deals with other nations who were in that proposed trade deal.  Not every trade deal is advantageous.  Others criticize him for ending NAFTA and negotiating a new deal with Mexico and Canada.  The new deal has some advantages for Americans, having fixed some problems with NAFTA.  But there is also some protectionism in the new deal also.  All of this is a mixed bag.  However, the alterations in the China trade agreements really did need to be done.  We were doing too much trade with China and there were many ways in which they were taking advantage of their Most Favored Nation and WTO status, given to them by Obama/Biden.  China is out to control the world and it is using the investments of Capitalists to get in position to hang Capitalists.  It has been stealing our intellectual property and our capital investments in China left and right.  This is a nation that uses slave labor, harvests organs, violates religious freedom, violated the treaty over its governance of Hong Kong, and is expansionist in the South China Sea and in the Himalayan Mountains, having previously invaded Tibet.  China is ruled by very evil people who appear to have Biden in their pocket.  We need to trade much less with this rogue nation.

Biden and Obama were convinced that manufacturing in the U.S. was essentially a matter of business raping Gaia.  They viewed it as environmentally bad.  They were happy to export our manufacturing capability to China.  This was very much to China's advantage militarily and in terms of world economic influence and power.  The pandemic helped to show how absurdly dependent we have become on China's manufacturing and how they are happy to use that to their advantage.

The Democrats like to claim that Trump has hurt us with our allies.  Yet, our ally Germany was pledged to spend 2% of its GDP on defense as a NATO ally.  Instead, Germany had long taken advantage of us by spending only 1.2% of its GDP, giving it an economic advantage.  By November 2019, Germany had increased its defense spending to 1.38% of GDP, after much complaining about pressure from Trump.  By October 2020, German spending was up to 1.57%.  Back in 2014, only three countries in NATO spent as much as 2% of GDP.  By October 2020, ten NATO nations spent at least 2%.  Of course, some of these nations did not like being pressured to meet their pledges.  Trump was quite right in pressuring them to do so.  Obama/Biden had not applied much pressure on this, so the nations of NATO were very accustomed to allowing the U.S. to protect them with little of their help.

One of the most important things Trump has done is to cut back on the excesses of the regulatory bureaucracy, as well as putting pressure on Congress not to give the regulatory agencies more power.  Regulatory compliance is estimated to cost $1.9 trillion a year.  Regulations are primarily directed at businesses and they are especially costly for small businesses.  Big business often supports more regulation to reduce the ability of smaller businesses to challenge them in the marketplace.  Big business can more readily hire experts to put them in compliance and they can often control the agencies that regulate them.  By law, any new regulation costing over $100 million in compliance costs, must have a cost-benefit analysis performed.  The Obama/Biden administration very commonly ignored this law.  When they did do a cost-benefit analysis, they commonly greatly underestimated the cost and over-stated the benefits.  They used regulations and changes in the interpretation of regulations to damage or destroy whole industries.  The coal industry was very much one such example.  Out of work coal miners, railroad and barge workers, and coal-fired power plant workers can thank these heartless souls, Obama and Biden, for the loss of many such jobs.  Yes, natural gas from fracking was going to cause some significant switching from coal to natural gas, but the government had no business putting its heavy foot on the scale on the side of natural gas.

After the election of 2016, manufacturing began to recover in the U.S.  Manufacturers are my laboratory's primary customers and my business increased steadily and strongly after the election until the CCP coronavirus caught up with us.  When manufacturers could not see regulatory and legal stability and faced the world's highest tax rates, as was the case under Obama/Biden, there were many reasons to manufacture in other countries and that is where their efforts went.  Not only did we lose the manufacturing capability, but we began losing the design, technology, and general engineering capability that were tied to the nations where the manufacturing was performed.  As a result, my laboratory was in a depression that lasted from 2009 through 2016. Fortunately, under the Trump presidency, huge increases in work and income followed in 2017 and then in 2018 and 2019.

Frankly, I have run out of time to write about the many reasons why President Trump is vastly superior to Joe Biden as our President.  There is absolutely no contest here in terms of a rational assessment of who will do the better job of protecting the rights of the individual, allowing the market to recover from the Chinese Communist Party coronavirus, and allowing productive people to raise our future standard of living.  The socialist Biden would be a disaster, as is his entire party.

Biden Promises to Destroy Fossil Fuels Industries in 4-year Transition Period Ending in 2025

Many people will say that he said no such thing. Literally, he did not say this. However, rational individuals will see that this four-year transition period is the implication of the things he said, but would never have the courage to say explicitly. 

What did he explicitly say? Let us list his key statements:

"I would transition away from the oil industry, yes."

"It has to be replaced by renewable energy over time, over time."

"I'd stop giving to the oil industry, I'd stop giving them federal subsidies."

"We need other industries to transition to get to ultimately a complete zero emissions by 2025."

"The point is, look, we have to move toward a net-zero emissions.  The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production, by 2050 totally."

Biden's energy plan does not literally call for shutting down the entire oil and gas and coal industries by 2025.  It calls for zero-emissions with a fantasy that one will develop a huge industry that will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  The cost of actually sucking carbon dioxide, plant food, from the atmosphere will be gigantic.  It will have a huge negative impact on farming as well.  The materials that will hold the carbon dioxide will have to be mined at great cost, or great caverns will have to be created to hold the removed carbon dioxide.  The sequestration of carbon dioxide will have major environmental costs itself.

How will the otherworldly costs of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere be borne?  If it is to be borne by the American taxpayer, that would be a subsidy to the oil, gas, and coal industries, in the left's viewpoint.  Since Biden pledges no subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries, they will have to pay the incredible costs for the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  This will cause the costs of oil, gas, and coal to skyrocket.  Skyrocketing costs means much lower usage of oil, gas, and coal.  This means many, many oil, gas, and coal workers will become unemployed.  It means that many people who transport oil, gas, coal, and products made from them will become unemployed.  Those towns and cities which presently support these industries will have massive unemployment.  As West Virginia has suffered greatly from the travails of coal under prohibitive governmental mandated expenses, so will many other areas be devastated.  Western Pennsylvania, eastern and southern Ohio, North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana will be very hard hit.

All of this is to happen in a crash manner by 2025, according to what Biden said in the debate.  Some say he was confused and meant to say by 2035, the date he gave for zero-emissions in energy production.  Maybe he was confused and careless.  Maybe the differing dates are because the huge changes in energy production to create tens of thousands of wind generators, huge photovoltaic farms, bank after bank of batteries, and the means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in massive quantities will cause the generation of a huge load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Making cement blocks huge enough to anchor those wind generators releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for instance.  Mining the materials for huge, sweeping banks of batteries, for the materials to make wind generators, and to make photovoltaic farms requires an incredible amount of energy use.  So, maybe Biden is saying the oil, gas, and coal industries must be zero-emissions by 2025, but the totally changed energy industry as a whole will not have to be zero-emissions until 2035.  That would make sense, if the U.S. economy could survive such wrenching changes in a 14 year period.  But it cannot do so.  Trump is right that this would cause our economy to falter badly.  We would be in for a never-ending depression.

Stop and think about the consequences of skyrocketing energy costs.  All of our transportation costs will go up greatly.  Manufacturing operations require considerable energy and they require that it be dependable.  A power outage can destroy all of the materials or products in a production process at the time of power failure.  A laboratory, such as mine, can lose many hours of time when an analysis process is stopped in mid-stream and a unique sample is destroyed.  The cost of virtually every product must go up as its production cost goes up and the transportation cost to get it to the customer goes up.  One of the reasons Americans have higher incomes than the vast majority of people around the world is because we have a lower cost of energy and a more dependable supply of energy than almost any other country.  Under Biden's energy plan, manufacturers will have no choice but to move many manufacturing and support jobs out of the U.S.  That situation will be even worse than it was under the Obama/Biden administration.  When manufacturing goes overseas, the support technology also goes overseas.  Engineering and science jobs in support of manufacturing disappear, along with the knowledge to make things.  The U.S. will lose the knowledge that has given us the very superior standard of living we have.

As I have shown in many posts on this blog, the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has been proven to be wrong.  The Earth energy budgets that summarize the understanding of the so-called consensus violate physics.  The climate models based on their wrong ideas of physics, keep making wrong predictions about the temperatures in the atmosphere and about future temperatures.  Of course they do, because they do not understand the physics of thermal radiation, convection in air, and they even violate energy conservation.  Even if one does not understand the physics, as very few people do, the scientific method says the hypothesis is wrong because the model predictions have been wrong.

Of course the insanity of the Biden energy plan does not stand alone among his insane policy ideas.  Biden will hit the American economy with a slew of new regulations with a massive expansion of the Swamp Creature regulatory state.  Regulations are a huge expense burden on business already.  Small businesses cannot even know what the regulations are because they do not have the means to monitor the avalanche of new regulations and interpretations of regulations that occur each year.  Businesses that want to make large investments are afraid to do so, because the new operations they want to create may take years to be in place (in large part due to regulations) and then take years to make back their initial investment.  What arbitrary, irrationally expensive regulations relative to any benefits will come down the pike and wipe out their investment?  Politicians rarely think about the consequences of their actions, except as far as the next election at most.  A lifetime politician like Biden is not even capable of thinking about the destructive nature of his ideas.  The actions President Trump has taken to moderate the burdens of federal regulations are a much under-esteemed effect of his administration.

Another idiot's delight is a national minimum wage of $15 an hour, which was backed by Biden in the debate and has widespread support in the Democratic Party.  As I have previously written on this blog, the cost of living in the U.S. varies hugely across the country.  A business in NYC or one in San Francisco is much more likely to be able to justify paying an employee $15 an hour than is a small business in Okmulgee, Oklahoma or Arco, Idaho or Rising Sun, Mississippi.  The $15/hour Biden plan is a way to depopulate rural America and to force everyone into huge metropolitan areas where the cost of living is much higher, but one can also often earn more money.  Unfortunately, this actually tends to result in a real lowering of the standard of living of many people, especially the very poorer people that the $15/hour proposal pretends to help.  The resident of NYC with a mean income earns less real income than does the mean income earning American when you correct for the higher cost of living!  For a person of mean income, moving from Oklahoma to NYC actually lowers your standard of living, despite the fact you will likely be paid more.

President Trump understands the basic principles that allow our economy to flourish and that allow Americans to enjoy an increasing standard of living.  Joe Biden does not.

Biden Flies Across America to Rally with Ten People Causing Climate Catastrophe

For a man who tells us that the Earth and Mankind face an existential crisis due to the use of fossil fuels, Joe Biden does not hesitate to fly across the United States to give a "rally" for ten followers.  Our energy future is to be put on a starvation diet, while Joe Biden spews carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Is this just his megalomania, consistent with his belief that the American People do not deserve to know whether he will pack the Supreme Court?  Or does this mean Joe understands that the Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming theory is really just a scam for the Socialist Democratic Party to gain more power for the government, which is about to be "I am the Democratic Party" Joe Biden?

Because if Joe Biden is the Democratic Party, then rest assured that Joe Biden, if elected President, will be the Government.  There will be no more need for sharing power with the Supreme Court and the Congress then there is a need for Joe Biden to share power with multiple leaders, factions, and individuals in the Democratic Party.

Those Stubborn Climate Modelers Absolutely Insist on Being Wrong

The previous set of wrongheaded climate models, CMIP5, generated too much warming over the sea and in the tropical troposphere (the lower, most dense, layer of the Earth's atmosphere).  The current CMIPS6 models cause excessive warming all over the Earth in both the lower and the middle troposphere.  It has long been recognized that too much warming in the tropical troposphere causes greater latitudinal temperature gradients that would cause too much warming worldwide.  The errors of the CMIPS5 models were not addressed.  Instead, the bias of the modelers in favor of exaggerated man-made global warming has led to their creation of a new generation of models that actually makes the errors of the previous models worse.  Apparently, these "scientists" believe that when you are proven wrong, the job of science is to develop models and theories that are even more wrong.  These CMIPS6 climate models are supposed to provide the basis for the next UN IPCC report on how man's use of hydrocarbon fuels will cause catastrophic global warming.

A new paper by Dann M. Mitchell et al.,  examines the temperature trends in the troposphere and stratosphere in the tropics for 48 of the CMIPS6 climate models, each of which is supposed to represent the well-understood consensus climate science, despite the differences in their predictions.  The essence of the results of this analysis by Mitchell et al. is shown in this figure from their manuscript accepted for publication in Environmental Research Letters:

The overwrite on the right-most graph is part of the word manuscript on this pre-publication paper.  The vertical atmosphere altitude is given in terms of the pressure in hPa, where an hPa is 100 Pa.  The x-axis gives the change in temperature per decade in Kelvins (a change of 1 Kelvin equals a change of 1 degree Centigrade).  There is warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere in the left-most graph, so you can tell the pressure at which the stratosphere begins by looking for the intersection with the zero trend line.

The left-most graph is the measured (black) and the model (red and blue) change in temperature/decade for the period 1979 to 2014.  The black measurements are based on three sets of data: RICH1.5 radiosondes, RAOBCORE1.5 radiosondes, and the Reanalysis ERA5/5.1.  The red horizontal lines indicate the so-called 95% uncertainty range of temperature rate change of the models which try to predict the ocean surface temperatures.  The blue model results are for those models that assume the measured ocean temperatures, rather than trying to predict them.  The red models that try to predict the ocean temperatures increase their errors with excessively high warming rates over the oceans at the surface.  Then, on top of that, they predict increasingly larger warming trends as they climb upwards through the troposphere.  The predictions for the cooling in the stratosphere seem to be much better for these models in the 1979-2014 period, but this is scientifically illusory.

The middle and the right graph separate out the 1979-1997 and the 1998-2014 periods of time.  In the earlier period, the models gave too little cooling in the stratosphere, while in the later period they gave too much cooling.  Putting these offsetting errors together, produced a seemingly good agreement in the stratosphere in the combined period from 1979 to 2014.  However, it is clear from the shorter period results that the modelers did not really know what they were doing.  The actual measured rates show little to no cooling in the stratosphere after 1997, while the models insist on cooling rates similar to those for the 1979-1997 period.

From 1998 to 2014, the CMIPS5 models excessively warmed at rates of 4 to 5 times faster than did the actual temperature measurements.  The CMIPS6 models are not improved.  They are especially in error in the upper troposphere at pressures of about 200 hPa.  There is one especially wrongheaded model and it is the one the Canadian government relies upon for its policies on global warming.  It yields a tropospheric warming rate about 7 times the observed warming rate.  Those poor, poor Canadians!  Governmental energy policies based on a seven-fold exaggeration of a "problem" sure does create real problems.

There is also an evaluation of the CMIPS6 models by McKitrick and Christy which has been accepted for publication by Earth and Space Science.  These authors had found that there was a warming bias in the CMIPS5 models in the tropical mid-troposphere in earlier analyses.  Their new work demonstrates that the CMIPS6 models are even more biased towards warming.  This increased warming is seen in their predictions in both the lower and middle troposphere at all latitudes - the tropics and beyond.  They found that the models using higher Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities (>3.4K) warmed faster than those using lower values of the ECS, but both sets of models all predicted faster than the observed rate of warming.  The observed rate of warming in the lower troposphere is given as 0.15 K/decade, while the lower ECS value set of models with an average ECS of 2.7K gave a lower troposphere warming rate of 0.21K/decade.  The observed middle troposphere warming rate is 0.09K/decade.  To get the right rate of warming, the models would have to use ECS values in the 1 to 2 K range.

In conclusion, the climate modelers, whose models are the basis for man-made global warming, continue to show that they do not understand the science and that their degree of understanding is not improving.  Yet, we can rest assured that many governmental bodies will continue to determine their energy-use policies based on their failed understanding of the science.  There will continue to be claims that they represent the consensus on well-understood science.  It is pretty much impossible to understand the stubborn persistence in the belief in the failed catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis as a matter of science.

Their clinging to this erroneous belief is a matter of payoffs, environmental religion, and socialist politics lusting to wrest away more and more control of the management of our individual lives. 

My Critique of the Washington Post Pulitzer Prize Winning Global Warming Lead Article

The article in the Washington Post, whose arguments I tear to shreds in this post, was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for 2020 for:

Explanatory Reporting

Staff of The Washington Post

For a groundbreaking series that showed with scientific clarity the dire effects of extreme temperatures on the planet.

Complete nonsense is Pulitzer Prize worthy in the minds of the elitist collectivist left who make these awards.

The August 14, 2019 Washington Post had a front page, above the fold article which continues to fill the entirety of pages A10 and A11:

This article is also posted on-line here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/?noredirect=on

There is a salient bias exhibited here.  The temperature change is measured from 1895 to 2018.  Why is 1895 the starting time for that measurement?  Because 1895 was a very cold year.  Let us examine the average US temperature plot below by Statistica:

The average temperature in 1895 was 50.34⁰F and in 2018 it was 53.53⁰F, so the temperature difference was 3.19⁰F or 1.77⁰C.  Had the Washington Post chosen to start the comparison in 1900 when the average US temperature was 52.77⁰F, then the increase in average temperature from then to 2018 would be 0.76⁰F or 0.42⁰C.  Now no one seriously believes that man-made global warming caused 1900 to be 2.43⁰F or 1.35⁰C warmer than 1895.  So, a change of weather, not a change of climate was the likely cause of this substantial difference in temperature over a 5 year period.  But this 5-year change is 67.5% of the 2⁰C temperature change that the Washington Post, on the authority of the UN, is claiming is a critically disastrous temperature increase.  The choice of a particularly cold starting point for a comparison of temperatures is a common trick of the alarmist game-plan.

The warmest spots on the map from the Washington Post article are about 3⁰C warmer relative to 1895.  Subtract the 1.35⁰C difference in the average temperatures to shift to a 1900 starting point in time and there are no spots in the U.S. with a 2⁰C increase relative to 1900.

There is a second interesting problem which is revealed by the map itself.  Carbon dioxide is always said to be a well-mixed atmospheric gas by the catastrophic man-made global warming crowd.  While it actually is not as well-mixed as they represent it to be, its variations are nonetheless gradual and spread over large areas.  Yet, the hot spots in the Washington Post U.S. map are in very much smaller sized areas.  If the warmer areas are warmer due to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, then those areas should be of much larger dimensions than those of the map.  The strong temperature differences in the map are much too localized and suggest that they are due to chaotic weather differences, not real climate differences.

Further examination of the U.S. temperature change map shows a large area in the Southeastern U.S. where the temperature has actually cooled since 1895 as shown in the light green color.  If one maintains that the warming of 3⁰C in some small areas is due to an increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere since 1895, then isn't the near 1⁰C cooling in the Southeastern U.S. also due to that same increase in carbon dioxide?  The larger area and more gradual changes in the cooled area is a better match for the somewhat well-mixed carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere.  There actually are cooling effects due to carbon dioxide as I have many times pointed out in prior articles.  Those who have greatly exaggerated the warming effect of CO₂, claim the cooling effects are insignificant.  Remove the exaggeration of the warming effect and the several cooling effects are not so trivial and many of them are not saturating or saturating as rapidly with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide as is the warming effect.  I am not actually claiming that the cooling in the Southeast is due to carbon dioxide.  It is unlikely that it is.  However, if you are in the business of assuming that the temperature change since 1895 is due to carbon dioxide, then you ought to consider its cooling effects also.

Some of the hottest areas are near our two largest metropolitan areas, New York City and Los Angeles.  Perhaps these areas have warmed due to the urban heat island effect since 1895?  Virtually all the growth of population in southern California and in Arizona around Phoenix has occurred since 1895, undoubtedly contributing to that major hot spot in the Washington Post temperature map.  The article is full of stories about the warming of the state of New Jersey.  Averaging the population of that state from the 1890 and 1900 U.S. Census results to estimate the 1895 population, the 1895 population was about 1,660,000 people.  With the advent of automobiles, it became possible for people working in New York City and in Philadelphia to live in New Jersey, so those metropolitan areas expanded far into New Jersey.  The population of New Jersey in the 2015 estimate is 8,958,000, which is a increase by a factor of about 5.4 times compared to the 1895 population.  There are extensive urban heat island effects in New Jersey as a result.  The article bewails the fact that the only state in the contiguous 48 states with an average temperature increase above 2⁰C is little Rhode Island.  Its population in 1895 was about 387,000 people, which by 2015 has increased to about 1,056,300.  This factor of 2.7 increase in population in this high population density state has most likely also been accompanied by a significant urban heat island effect.  The warmer area around Miami is another area affected by a very large population increase since 1895.

Many of the areas showing the larger increases in temperature are also low population areas such as that on the California - Oregon border and southeastern Oregon, the area on the Utah - Colorado border, most of Maine, and the stretch across northern Michigan, northern Minnesota, most of North Dakota, and northern Montana.  An examination of the number and quality of weather stations in these areas used to generate this data might turn up interesting results.  Could it be the case that these high temperature areas are largely projections of temperatures outside these areas, which projections predominantly produce warming in rural areas?  In any case, since the population density is low in these areas, any affects on humans is also likely to be low.  These are not particularly warm areas in the first place, so any warming that does occur is quite likely to be very welcome.

Outside of the warmer areas of the Southwest and a small area around Miami, most of the areas showing the most warming since 1895 are rather cool parts of the U.S.  Given that Americans are much inclined to take vacations in warmer climes during the winters from such areas as the Northeast whose warmer winters since 1895 are much decried in the Washington Post article, it is hard to see the warming of such cooler parts of the U.S. as a general disaster.  People upon retirement still move to much warmer parts of the U.S. such as Florida and Arizona.  Apparently, they rather like warmth, however the Washington Post may pretend that warmth is a catastrophe.

Yes, it may be true, as lamented in the article, that ice cannot be cut from northern New Jersey lakes as it used to be for ice boxes, but then again we now have refrigerators. If we did not have refrigerators, the disappearance of that northern New Jersey ice might be a disaster.  Perhaps the Washington Post wants us to lose the use of electricity and to force us to return to the use of ice boxes as a result. In that context, it is a disaster that this return to primitivism in the name of radical environmentalism may be harder to accomplish.  This is not one of my goals and I do not believe it is a goal of most Americans either.

I have carried out the above discussion generally accepting the temperature record data provided by the Washington Post article.  However, the thermometer temperature data of 1895 and of 1900 has been heavily adjusted downward and recent data has been heavily adjusted upward by NASA GISS.  The U.S. temperature data given below is based on the USHCN2 historical network, which adjusts recent thermometer readings upwards by a substantial amount before releasing the data to the public.  Here is a comparison of the high and low daily temperature results for the measured or unadjusted data compared to the adjusted data comparing the 1895 cold year with 2010, as discovered by Tony Heller in a 2010 post on Real Science:

The fact that this data cuts off about a decade earlier than 2018, makes little difference, since the temperature has changed very little in the last decade.  The daily maximum temperatures in the unadjusted data shows smaller areas warming and larger areas cooling.  The unadjusted warming areas are usually areas of high population growth (Los Angelos, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami, and the metropolitan areas of the Northeast) or areas of very low population density in the western US and northern Great Plains states.  The unadjusted cooling areas are mostly areas significantly affected by weather from the Gulf of Mexico.

The minimum temperature data (night time lows) is interesting in the unadjusted temperature hottest spots are actually more common in the western US than in the adjusted data.  There are many more areas of substantial cooling in the unadjusted data also.  Most of this cooling is in areas of the Southeast and the southern Great Plains.  There are larger areas of gray, the temperature unchanged areas, in the night time unadjusted temperature record.  Where warming has occurred it is often in the higher elevation areas of the US, where the day-night temperature variations tend to be larger than in lower elevation areas.  A slight reduction in these day-night temperature swings is more likely to be beneficial than harmful.  The night-time warming just south of the Canadian border is very unlikely to have anything but benefits for the people who live there also.

The land area sum of the unchanged and the cooled areas in both the maximum and minimum temperature unadjusted records, suggests that the average affects of temperature changes are actually rather small.  I expect the overall cooling of the Southeast brings more benefits to the USA than does the warming of the Southwestern and Rocky Mountain states of the USA where few people live.  As mentioned, the warming of those rather large areas just south of the Canadian border surely brings advantages to the people living there.

This Washington Post article by four of their radical Climate Change writers, is an excellent lesson in the massive dishonesty of the catastrophic man-made global warming alarmist faction.  There is no attempt to distinguish the general warming of the post Little Ice Age period from any real effects that might be caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  There is nothing but assumption that the official data warming since the particularly cold year of 1895 has been due to man's use of organic fuels causing greenhouse gas emissions.  They are most insistent that mankind should feel a strong, collective sense of guilt that it is destroying the Earth and the future of mankind.  This is baloney.  It is moldy, rotten baloney.

It is a very sad observation that so many Americans actually believe in this irrational nonsense.  It is even sadder that every scientist in the nation is not working hard to reveal this con game.  Quite a few of them are on the take and many of them are intimidated by the lockstep socialism, political correctness, and radical environmentalism of our academic institutions and most of our information media.