Global Warming The Great Deception

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be” ~ Albert Einstein
Global Warming The Great Deception

Commentaries 

The Danger of Scientific Consensus

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”~ Dr. Michael Crichton, MD, in a lecture at Caltech titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, 2003.
To understand how challenging scientific consensus serves to advance the state of knowledge in science, I think it is instructive to analyze in some detail how Albert Einstein challenged the greatest scientist in history at that time, Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein’s willingness to challenge Newton resulted in what is arguably recognized to be one of the greatest advancements of science in the 20th century.
Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was an English polymath who has been described as one of the greatest mathematicians and physicists of all times. In 1687, Newton published “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, known as the “Principia”. In the “Principia”, Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, as well as developed the mathematical technique of infinitesimal calculus which led to integral and differential calculus.
Newton’s work was so revolutionary in nature in so many fields that he did not contradict scientific consensus, he established it. Newton developed his law of universal gravitation to account for Johannes Keppler’s laws of planetary motions as well as the trajectories of comets and actions of tides, among other phenomena. Newton’s contributions to mathematics, mechanics, thermodynamics and acoustics were instrumental in the development of those fields of science. Newton’s work represented the pinnacle of “established scientific consensus”. He was a Fellow of Trinity College, the second Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, knighted by the Queen, President of the Royal Society for 24 years, a member of Parliament and Master of the Royal Mint.
Over 200 years after Newton, in 1905, a clerk in the Bern, Switzerland, patent office named Albert Einstein (1879-1955), published a paper titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, later to be called “the Special Theory of Relativity.” The world of physics would never be the same. It was one of four papers that Einstein published that year, dubbed the annus mirabilis. Ten years later, Einstein published what is perhaps his most famous paper, “The General Theory of Relativity.” In summary, Einstein’s General Theory questioned the views of the greatest physicist in history and proposed a radical revision to the concepts contained in Newton’s law of universal gravitation.
With his General Theory of Relativity in 1915, Einstein challenged Newton’s linear theory of gravitational force with the metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein’s field equations, which describe the relationship between the geometry of a four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime. Einstein’s field equations not only solved for the anomaly of the precession of Mercury’s orbit about the Sun at its perihelion, but they also accurately predicted the amount of the deflection of light by the Sun’s gravitational force in an observation of a solar eclipse by Sir Arthur Eddington in 1919. Einstein’s General Theory upended scientific consensus about gravitational force and paved the way for the prediction of the gravitational red shifting of light, black holes, gravitational waves, and an expanding universe.
So, what does all of this have to do with the so-called “scientific consensus” that supposedly exists in the field of climate science today as regards the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? First, it should be noted that there is no consensus. Over 1400 (and growing) scientists and professionals throughout the world, including more than 270 in the US, have signed “The World Climate Declaration” stating that there is no climate emergency. The list includes Nobel Laureates, distinguished academics, scientists, and professionals in related fields from virtually every country. In addition, there are thousands of scientists around the globe who have publicly opposed the hypothesis in recent years in addition to those who signed the Declaration. Second, there have been many peer-reviewed, published scientific papers that refute the hypothesis. In my book titled “Global Warming: The Great Deception-The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care”, I cite published, peer-reviewed scientific research, employing the first principles of the relevant scientific fields of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, atmospheric physics and spectroscopy that prove that CO2 does not cause global warming. I use publicly available data from the world’s temperature databases maintained by NOAA and NASA to prove that there has been no significant global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, or land mass.
Unlike the scientific consensus that existed in the past regarding Ptolemy’s geocentric view of the universe or Newton’s gravitational law, the supposed consensus on global warming is contrived. It has been created and promoted by special interest groups such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (“UNIPCC”), certain world politicians and global investment firms for political and financial gain. It is a fraudulent hypothesis because it has been designed with the intent to deceive. The temperature of the troposphere, measured by satellites using microwave sounding technology, shows a cooling each year from 1979-1998, during a time when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 25%. This fact falsifies the global warming hypothesis, ipso facto.
If the scientific facts clearly falsify the fraudulent global warming hypothesis, then why is it still being promoted by the proponents? It is all about the money. Over one trillion dollars has been spent on climate research in the last 50+ years with nothing to show for it. The UNIPCC has been the recipient of much of this largesse, as well as universities, academic societies, and scientific organizations. It would be professional suicide for a young scientist or academic to oppose the “consensus.” They would lose funding and be ostracized within the ranks of climate scientists. The world market for trading carbon credits and offsets is fast approaching a trillion dollars a year. Global investment firms stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars of profits each year managing investments in “green investment” vehicles.
The latest UN climate conference held in Egypt concluded with the agreement that wealthy nations like the US should pay climate reparations of 4-6 trillion dollars per year to the third-world countries most affected by “climate change!” There is an old saying among poker players: “if you look around the table and can’t spot the sucker, you are it!” When it comes to climate deals, Uncle Sam is the sucker.

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a new book titled “Global Warming: The Great DeceptionThe Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care.” It was published on January 4, 2022 www.globalwarmingdeception.com

The Lesson that California (and the rest of the US) Could Learn from the EU

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” ~ Albert Einstein

The European Union (EU) and the State of California have a lot in common. They both tried to solve a problem that does not exist; and in the process, created a much bigger problem. Now, they are both going to have to change their thinking in order to solve the bigger problem they now face

The EU is currently undergoing one of the most serious crises that it has faced since WWII. In July, 2022, Russia announced that they would reduce the flow of natural gas through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to 40% of system capacity. The EU responded by saying that they would engage in a voluntary reduction of 15% of historical levels of gas usage. The planned 15% cuts in gas consumption roiled the financial markets, upended the utility markets and set inflation and energy costs in a steep upward climb. Consumers are bracing for a 50%+ increase in electric bills and the prospect of rolling blackouts this winter. On September 2, 2022, Russia announced that it would cut off all of the natural gas it had been supplying the EU through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Now what is the EU going to do? “Now is the winter of our discontent” may well be the phrase spoken throughout the EU in coming months.

Why are things so bad in the EU? The answer is simple. During the period 1990-2020, the EU reduced fossil-fuel (coal and oil) plant electric production as a percent of total electric generation to 21% of total demand and replaced the lost production with an increase in the percentage of power generated by natural gas of 7% and wind and solar by 13%. In doing so, they abandoned 79 billion metric tonnes of proven domestic coal reserves and created a dependence on Russia for an increase in natural gas. Then, they administered the coup de grace to their power grid: they more than tripled their dependence on unreliable wind and solar power-sometimes the wind does not blow and the sun sets every night- just as the load begins to peak every afternoon.

According to the California Energy Commission, at the end of 2021, in-state coal and oil-fired power plants combined to produce 0.2% of the total in-state electric power generation while natural gas accounted for about 50%. Nuclear generation contributed only 8.5% of in-state generation and renewables contributed 35%. Interestingly, in 2021, California imported 33% of its electricity needs from outside the state. California has little or no proven reserves of coal. However, the last comprehensive national assessment of the proven coal reserves in the US conducted in 1974 estimated that there were around one trillion short tons of recoverable coal. More recent estimates put that number at around 500 billion tons; but, a current, comprehensive estimate needs to be conducted to verify that number. In 2020, 22 States in the US mined 535 million short tons of coal. At that rate, the US has at least 1,000 years of proven reserves of coal to satisfy demand!

How does the supply-demand profile for electricity in California compare to that of the EU?California had total electrical demand in 2021 of 280,000 GWh (billion watt hours); 30% of which was “imported” from adjacent states (AZ, NV, UT). In an interview on August 22, 2022, the Chief Operating Officer of the California grid operator CAISO stated that “there’s over 240 gigawatts of resources that have applied for interconnection.” That means that California plans to solve their supply problem by buying more power from out of state providers. In 2021, about 20% of imported electricity was generated by fossil fuel plant operators. So, in effect, California is exporting their CO2 emissions to neighboring states. But, this presents two challenges: the reliability of supply and the cost.

In 2021, California depended on renewable energy sources for a total of 33% of its electricity demand-about 2X the percentage of renewables that supplied the total EU demand. One third of that renewable energy came from out-of-state. At present, the storage technology for wind turbine generated electricity permits up to three days storage. For solar voltaic cells, the storage is 1-5 days. Therefore, if environmental conditions (extreme hot or cold weather) stress the power grid, renewable energy can not supply increased demand for more than a short period of time. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation had this to say about power transfers in its May 2022 report: “The growing reliance on transfers within the Western Interconnection and falling resource capacity in many adjacent areas increases the risk that extreme events will lead to load interruption.” As regards the economics of California’s electric grid, in 2020, the price for electricity was 70% higher than the U.S. average and only five states had higher prices. From 2016 to 2020 the price of electricity in California increased by 18%, the largest increase in the country.

In my book titled “Global Warming: The Great Deception-The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care”, I cite published, peer-reviewed scientific research, employing the first principles of the relevant scientific fields of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, atmospheric physics and spectroscopy to prove that CO2 does not cause global warming. I use publicly available data from the world’s temperature

databases to prove that there has been no significant global warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans or land mass.

Do the scientific facts matter at all? Will people in California face the challenges that confront Europe due to ignorance of the facts?

Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a new book titled “Global Warming: The Great Deception-The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care.” It was published on January 4, 2022 www.globalwarmingdeception.com