Google is the most powerful company in the world. They spy on you, sell your private information, lobby all the major governments in the world, and influence (Hack) elections.
Google generated at least 2.6 million votes for Hillary (article link)
STOP USING GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE
We have stopped and now use a search engine that doesn't track. We use, and recommend, that you start using DuckDuckGo. Yes it's a silly name, but after trying it for months, we are very happy with it.
Letter to the Editor:
Over the last several months the media focus has been on the state elections that will determine our representatives on a state and national level. We have been inundated with information, some true, some false. Who to believe? What to believe? We can educate ourselves with not only what the candidate has said, but also what they have done or their record.
Franklin D. Roosevelt said “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” So, educate yourself on our important yet, oft neglected, city election. In some ways, it will impact our daily lives more than the state and federal elections. Last week a resource from the Fredericksburg Tea Party was published that posed 16 questions to each of the city candidates. In case you missed it, the link was https://fredericksburgteaparty.org/election-2020/. The questions were not biased or leading – so the candidates could fully express their views.
Based on those interviews, I will be supporting Graham Pearson for mayor and Mickey Pool and Jerry Luckenbach for city council. Why? – Because each offered practical, common sense, fiscally responsible ideas for solving the city’s existing and growth issues. I urge you to educate yourself on the candidates and cast an educated vote.
Annette Bennett
Fredericksburg Tea Party
I was a California resident for 64 year, here is what I know that the leftists are not telling you.
Even though Gov. Newsome is blaming Man-Made Climate Change on California wild fires and energy problems, California's climate history has not really changed in 5,000 years from what we know of native American history, geographical, and biological (tree growth rings) data. California has a rainy season for only a few months of each year. Most of California's fresh water comes from rainfall in the mountains on the east side of the State. Every year, "Santa Ana" winds develop from a high atmospheric pressure zone over Nevada and Utah. This causes high winds flowing west over mountain passes and eastern deserts. The yearly pattern causes hot and high winds flowing west to low pressure zones over the ocean. Long before modern man landed in California, lightning strikes caused frequent wildfires. These fires would burn a large area of existing vegetation growth. Because of the high frequency of these forest fires, tall trees would survive but the smaller underbrush would be destroyed. But those ashes would add to the soil to support new growth and nourish the taller trees that did not die in the fires. This is because the fires were swiftly moving and lower temperature due to the smaller amount of underbrush.
Then came modern man. Tree harvesting, underbrush clearing, and replanting new young trees was actually good for the ecosystem. However, modern man was offended by the look of clear cutting. Liberal policies created new laws that prohibited clear cutting of forests and much of lumber harvesting at all. On top of that, forest services did everything to prevent all fires from occuring. That resulted in a higher than normal amount of underbrush growth below the trees. When a fire actually happened, there was lots of easily burned fuel laying on the ground. Forest fires burned hotter than pre-man forest fires. This actually killed all of the trees. It should be noted that many pine cones only open and drop their seeds after the heat of a small fast fire creates heat to open them. These trees survive and propagate by fires. But now, the fire rages too hot, kills the tree, and destroys the pine cone and seeds.
As mentioned above, most of the rain falls in the mountains and then flows to the ocean via rivers. Mankind likes to build dams across these rivers which stores fresh water to use and also can be used to generate hydro-electric power. Here again, Liberals stepped in to say that California cannot build a dam across a pretty pristine river. As such, as the California population grows and grows, there are no new water sources to provide that need. Liberals prefer to let the water flow to the ocean to preserve tiny fish populations in the delta regions of the State. 
In summary, modern Liberal minded people have caused the conditions that now allow extremely hot and damaging forest fires to destroy the State and homes. They have created drought water conditions in the State. And because of Liberal energy opinions, there is insufficient energy capacity in the entire State. There are not enough hydro-electric dams. Of the ones that exist, they want to tear them down. The one last nuclear plant is going off-line shortly and there are no plans to build any new ones. There is wind and solar, but these are dependent on conditions and not a constant source. So California must import almost all of its energy needs because renewable energy is incapable of meeting all of the demands. In short, Liberal Californians have created their own problems over several decades but are now blaming all of their woes on man-made climate change, which has not really changed at all. California can be accurate used as an example of what the entire US would look like if Democrats win in November and pass AOC's Green New Deal.
Micheal Belsick
A World Upside Down
On August 9, 2020 a five-year-old boy was murdered in North Carolina while riding his bicycle in his front yard after church. The mainstream media hardly covered it. There were no 24 hour news cycles. No attempt to blast his name all over the country. There were no protests. No riots. No looting.
His name was Cannon Hinnant. KNOW HIS NAME! KNOW IT WELL! PRAY FOR HIM!
On the 4th of July, an eleven-year-old was killed in Washington D.C. His name was Davon McNeal’s.
The same day, an eight-year-old was killed in Chicago while playing with other children. Her name was Natalia Wallace.
Five children were murdered that weekend. Do you know their name?
Nineteen children have been murdered this year merely in St. Louise. Do you know their name?
Why do we all know the name of a man on drugs, resisting arrest after passing a counterfeit $20 that we all agree was brutally mistreated at the time of his arrest. Nobody wants this to happen again, but when children are gunned down by gangs, mobs, and lunatics, these children’s names go unmentioned. More lunatics then blame guns, or oppression, or inequity.
On Friday night Cannon Hinnant’s candlelight vigil was cancelled because anarchist mobs were expected to disrupt the memorial.
It is a world upside down.
Lawful citizen’s live in fear while the lawless no longer fear the law.
Bring back justice, bring back the Rule of Law, bring back rationality.
Pray. Stand your ground, remember Cannon Hinnant and say his name often and loud.
p.s. To my surprise Facebook has covered through individual’s posts the story of Cannon Hinnant which gives hope that after the complete failure of MSM some free speech might still exist (at least for a while).
You can help Cannon Hinnant’s family by giving to: https://www.gofundme.com/f/justice-for-cannon
Jim Jordan Sells Out Conservatives to Big Tech
Is this true? Did our most trusted representative go woke?
By now you have heard about the leak of Jim Jordan’s “Confidential” memo, “REPUBLICAN HEARING GUIDANCE Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple” The memo was leaked to the press on July 29th, the day before the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing on July 30th. Before each hearing it is common for both parties to put in print and distribute their “Talking Points” to their respective members. Though leaks are widespread in D.C., internal leaks within the parties are rare.
The full, leaked, memo from Jim Jordan can be read by clicking HERE 
What is obvious is that Mr. Jordan has set down in 
print what he does and dosen’t want from this hearing and sums it up in his opening “Hearing Themes”
The theme about the use and abuse of the anti-trust laws is consistent in the entirety of the memo and Mr. Jordan clearly acknowledges that Big Tech Political bias is a problem, however he repeatedly states that anti-trust law is not the way to solve Big Tech bias.
Antitrust won’t solve political bias
While exploring political bias in Big Tech, it is important to recognize that antitrust serves as a poor tool for advancing socio-political goals separate from market efficiencies and the competitive process.25 Modern antitrust law focuses on preserving the competitive process through application of rigorous economic analysis, and is poorly suited to achieving broader regulatory objectives.26 Accordingly, it seems wise to avoid repurposing antitrust in an attempt to advance and preserve freedom of speech in social media. Using antitrust to break up large technology companies or create sector-specific regulations instead seems likely to backfire. Such regulations may also reduce incentive for entrepreneurs to develop alternate platforms, such as Parler. Instead, new regulations may fortify large social media companies—as has happened in other industries when regulation actually strengthened.
As you read the memo, you will notice that nowhere in the memo does Mr. Jordan support these Big Tech companies, what he stresses is the way these companies should be legally addressed. We have seen all too often how the left will use “any means necessary” in their agenda with erratic and damaging results being the outcome. The Democrat Legislature has become extremely comfortable with not only writing the Law, but also trying to enforce the Law. The last three and a half years has been one nonstop Congressional investigation after another costing untold millions of taxpayer monies and have produced no results.
Mr. Jordan points out that all four of the Big Tech are already under investigation by several enforcement agencies.
Investigations are underway
While the Committee’s Big Tech investigation and this hearing may prove instructive generally—and provide fodder for those with a chip on their shoulders against capitalism—it is important to remember that the Trump Administration is already enforcing the antitrust laws that Congress has given it to administer, and is examining Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Arguably—far from showing that the existing antitrust framework is dysfunctional—as they play out these investigations may establish just how well the existing framework functions. In more detail:
There is a reason why the Constitution separates the power of Congress to make Law and the Power to enforce Law to the Executive Branch. Anything less would be a tyranny. Mr. Jordan knows this and so do you.
As you hear that Representative Jim Jordan has sold you down the road and as a target of the Social and Political bias (that has run unchecked by these four Big Tech companies and basically smother the voice of Conservatives) then Mr. Jordan must be in somebodies pocket by not forcing anti-trust legislature that would only benefit free speech. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Mr. Jordan’s memo conveys a respect for the “Rule of Law” and “Limited Government”. Two very Conservative values.
Willy-nilly law making would deliver more power to the Congress where everything becomes a moving target and the Congress gets to decide who wins, and when and if the Law is applied more to some and less to others. Anti-trust was meant to break up companies because their size, power, and control of markets inhibit or prevent free entry into the market. Anti-trust was not intended to break up companies because they are biased. Don’t believe for a moment that the Democrats want to break up these four Big Tech companies because Democrats don’t agree with Big Tech’s left leaning bias, or the Democrats have suddenly become champions of free speech. What they want is 10 or 12 companies that they hand deliver to leftist cohorts in exchange for loyal beholding to the cause. The fact is the use of anti-trust laws to break up Big Tech is a move to take control of social media and put it totally under the control of the leftists. The Democrats don’t like that they don’t have control over the owners of these companies, that the boss may someday do something crazy, like foster free speech, or let a smaller company survive long enough to become a platform for Conservatives.
It’s hard sometimes to do the right thing when it looks like the wrong thing. Why would Mr. Jordan not jump on the chance to shut down these shadow-banners, blockers, cancellers, and deletory-conspirator’s? Turns out that he respects the rule and intent of the Law as granted to Congress by the People in our hallowed Constitution, to limit the power and size of Government by stopping leftists from the ill gained booty of breaking up big companies and selling them to the highest bidder, to defend free markets even when the cost defending them outweighs the short term gain, and most importantly, to prevent Congress from thinking they can both create the Law and enforce it.
Last week was a fantastic week for the Fredericksburg Tea Party. The leaders and activists pulled together to save the sabotaged Texas State Republican Party Convention in Gillespie County and in Houston. You all know that the Houston Mayor, Sylvester Turner, waited until four days before the convention to force the closure of the George Brown Convention Center in a blatant attack on the First Amendment and Texas Conservatives. This after he marched in the streets of Houston a few weeks earlier with thousands of unmasked protestors.
We had people in Houston ready for the convention if by a miracle the Texas Court rescinded the Mayor’s illegal banning of “Freedom of peaceful assembly.” The Court kicked the can down the road as expected. Thousands of Delegates were left out on the street with no place to gather when a bit of luck came our way as the management at the Marriott Marquis Houston opened their convention rooms to the Texas GOP. This was not enough room to have all six thousand Delegates meet, but it allowed for some of the most important committees to meet, and for an amazing team of volunteers to jam-pack everything that was necessary to run a virtual convention in three short days.
What followed were long days and nights often going until 4AM to start again at 8AM. In Gillespie County the GOP and Tea Party set up a virtual headquarters at Victory Fellowship Church for Delegates not in Houston and for those returning. This went extremely well with the fantastic grace and help from Pastor Michael Burdick. We had WiFi, big screen projectors, training rooms and plenty of comfortable space.
At first it seemed like the GOP had three days to build a skyscraper…an impossible task. We had problems with ZOOM (online meetings application) and it took almost three more days to securely get the voting software running. In the end it all worked out, everyone hung-in, the GOP virtual team got everything working, and despite the left wing Mayor declaring war on the Texas GOP, we won the first battle.
We have some great local victories worth mentioning. Angela Smith (Tea Party Founder) was elected to the Texas State GOP Nominations Committee and Matt Long (Tea Party President) was elected to the Texas State GOP Platform and Resolutions Committee. A true Conservative, Lt. Col. Allen West, is now the Texas State GOP Chairman.
By Michael Belsick
Final Instalment
Let’s look back at what we have learned from each chapter and summarize:
Everything that I have mentioned in this series of articles is true, documented, and readily available. However, if you ask Google if man-made climate change is real, then you will get several different websites all claiming that man-made climate change is real. Conversely, if you ask Google for specific data then you will find information that disputes what the previous man-made climate change sites just told you. For example, https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml contains the data that I presented from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concerning the strength and frequency of hurricanes over the past several years. So, the real information is available online if you ask for the specific information and not some summary of that information.
Personally, I am a firm believer in natural climate change. There are tons of clear geological and fossil evidence that the Earth has undergone significant climate changes over the eons of time following natural events and geological changes (ex. continental drift, large meteor impact, etc) plus the Milankovitch Cycles causing ice ages about every 100,000 years.
I also believe, because it can be easily measured, that CO2 levels are higher now than they ever have been before during the past 800,000 years per Antarctic ice core sample. If you are a plant, like to eat plants, or like to eat animals that eat plants, all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere may be beneficial to life on Earth.
However, there is absolutely no proof that slightly higher levels of CO2 will cause Earth temperatures to rise to levels never experienced. All man-made climate change predictions are based solely upon changes to the CO2 concentrations. That is one reason why all predictions have not come true. Just because Milankovitch determined temperatures changes appear to be in synch with Antarctic ice core CO2 levels does not prove that changes in CO2 levels changed the temperatures. In fact, Al Gore once had to admit that changes in CO2 concentration lagged the temperature changes. Rising CO2 concentration raising Earth temperature would be like saying thunder causes lightning. Gore’s admission reinforces my belief that changes in Earth temperature affected the rate of organic decay, which in turn affected the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Otherwise, what caused regular changes in CO2 concentrations eons before modern man’s industrial revolution?
Finally, just because someone says that today’s high temperature is “record setting” does not mean that the same or higher local temperature never existed before someone was there to record it. Claims of record heat levels, record setting floods, record setting storms, or record setting levels of polar ice melts does not prove that it never existed before. Generally, it means that the person making these comments is not old enough to remember what occurred many years before. Weather is never constant and there should be no expectation that it will ever be.
Throughout this document, different chapters offered explanations as to why average Earth temperature could fall and rise independently from CO2; how CO2 is formed and used; how the sun heats the Earth; how the sun’s energy changes over time; how weather is created by differences in solar heating on Earth, and how weather and ocean currents, in turn, distributes that heat and cold around the Earth. Additionally, real data was provided to rebuke claims made by man-made climate change believers. It is an illogical argument to make a drastic prediction and then use that prediction as proof for your position on any issue. (ex., Global warming is making the Earth hotter, which is proof that global warming is real.) Finally, an explanation was provided as to how climate science can be corrupted due to a political bias that has nothing to do with climate science. For everything mentioned here, I am a man-made climate change denier and proud of it for being able to see through the fog of deception and go directly to the science.
I also want to state that the anthropogenic climate change believers are using scare tactics to urge the general population to accept their false claims such that the population will be willing to sacrifice everything in order to save the human race. Let me be quite clear when I say this. Climate change is real (not due to CO2 concentrations). It happens repeatedly throughout the history of the Earth and life on Earth. Most importantly, climate change never killed off all life on Earth. The wooly mammoth is a good example. This early relative to the Asian elephant was adapted to nicely survive the ice age. However, as the ice age came to an end as the Earth warmed up, the wooly mammoth was less suited for the warmer climate. What then sealed the fate of the wooly mammoth was the arrival of cave men that hunted the small remaining population to extinction. Cave men survived the ice age and thrived as things got warmer. The only “climate change” that brought about an abrupt extinction level event was when a very large meteor (6 to 9 miles wide) crashed into the Earth sending up a cloud of dust into the atmosphere that lasted long enough, blocking out the sun, such that all dinosaurs died out. However, luckily for us, all the smaller mammals survived. The age of the dinosaurs ended as the age of mammals began.
I understand that some people, mainly Liberals, will never accept what I have explained in these chapters. After all, I admitted being a “denier”. For those, I have two recommendations:
Figure 44. How Carbon Emissions have Changed Since 2000
Following these two suggestions will cut US CO2 emissions in half once all Democrats adopt a more primitive but enlightened lifestyle. As you sit on your front porch rocking away the evening because there is no TV Media, please feel free to condemn all Republicans for keeping their modern conveniences.
As an important take-away from what I have written, everyone, Republicans and Democrats, wants clean air and water. Please do not confuse CO2 higher concentrations with smog which is mostly nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, ozone, smoke and other particulates suspended in air. Carbon dioxide is odorless and colorless, meaning that you cannot smell it or see it. As I have indicated with scientific facts, the higher levels of carbon dioxide indicated has not been proven to be responsible for any increase in Earth’s temperature or climate change.
As a final thought to Democrats, I understand that you like to believe whatever Democratic politicians or those in the Media tell you to believe because you trust them. Please be skeptical enough to do some research on your own to prove to yourself that what I have written is true. Then you will realize that those you trusted have misled you.
As a final thought to Republicans, if you are willing to resist Progressive notions that Socialism will make the US better, why do you stay silent when Progressives claim that man-made climate change is real and we must immediately stop using all fossil fuels and surrender control to a Progressive government? Stand up for the truth!
As a final thought to leave for Greta Thumberg:
Climate Change is NOT killing off all the polar bears or your generation! (see Figure 45)
Go back home and try to be a normal teenager ignoring what adults tell you.
Figure 45. Polar Bear Population Estimates
Here is list of just a few climate change books that I have read:
By Michael Belsick
Figure 39 and Figure 40 show the current sources of energy used to generate electricity in the US and their percentage of use. What do these figures tell us? Fossil fuels were used to generate 63.6% of all electricity made and used in the US in 2018. It is extremely doubtful that one could grow the current 17% of renewables to 80.6% in just 12 years.
| Figure 39. Sources of US Electricity Generation, 2018 |
| Figure 40. US Electricity Generation by Source |
Thanks to the movie “The China Syndrome”, the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl and the one in Japan, the American public distrusts nuclear power plants. Currently however, there are 61 commercial operating nuclear reactors in 29 States meeting 19.4% of the US electrical needs. The largest nuclear power plant, Palo Verde in Arizona, provides 3.9 gigawatts of electricity to 4 million customers. Due to the building and operating costs and the political perception, it is doubtful that any new nuclear reactors will be built in the US.
Let’s look at the renewable sources
Hydro-electric
Hydro-electric is by far the best energy source to generate electricity. For energy comparison, the Hoover dam generates 4.5 gigawatts of electricity (more than the largest nuclear plant) for 8 million people. Just for cost comparison, hydroelectric power costs 0.63 cents per kilowatt compared to 1.33 cents per kilowatt using nuclear, 2.26 cents per kilowatt using coal, and 4.54 cents per kilowatts using natural gas.
Falling water is all that is needed to turn a turbine to generate electricity. However, to use falling water, one needs mountains and a fair amount of rainfall. Dams can be built in hills for water storage, but one needs a good vertical height difference to turn a turbine to generate electricity. The Midwest has no mountains. One is left with the Sierra Nevada, the Rockies, and the Appalachians as the major mountain ranges. One also needs Liberals to stop preventing dam construction and desire to tear down all existing dams. California Liberals have prevented California from building any substantial dams (over a million acre) since 1979, even though California is in a constant state of drought since most fresh water is mandated to flow into the ocean to preserve wetland habitats. Even the last small flood control dam was built in 2012. Hetch Hetchy is a major dam servicing the San Francisco Bay Area with water and electricity. However, Liberals want to tear it down to restore the pristine Tuolumne River flowing out of Yosemite Valley. For as excellent as it is for generating electricity, the US is not likely to increase hydro-electric generation much beyond the existing 7%.
Wind
Currently, wind power is used to turn large turbine blades to generate electricity that amounts to 6.5% of US production needs. The problem with wind turbines is that you need an area with lots of constant wind. Low velocity wind will barely generate any electricity at all. Mountain passes work well because the wind is channeled through the pass increasing the velocity of the wind but isn’t consistent. There are two problems with wind turbines. First, no one wants to look at them. A picturesque mountain valley becomes an eye sore with a field of thousands of wind turbines. As such, one will never find wind turbines near major population centers. Put it this way, with all the good coastal winds in Martha’s Vineyard, you will never get the rich people that live there to approve wind turbines ruining their views. The other problem with wind turbines is once again Liberals call for their removal because many birds, like eagles and hawks, are killed by the turbine blades. In the future, one might be able to build more wind turbines where only the poor or middle class will complain. Just as a guess, wind power may be able to grow from 6.5% to 20%.
Biomass
Biomass energy source is relatively new, meeting only 1.4% of US energy needs. The problem with biomass energy creation is the competition for available arable lands required for growing food. There are also potential environmental issues as well. In my opinion, and many others, biomass energy is a nice experimental project but one that will never be able to meet the US energy needs. If biomass energy grows at all, it may only get up to 5% at best.
Geothermal
Geothermal is currently only 0.4% because there are very limited areas of geothermal energy available to harness. Senator Harry Reid’s brother was able to get a huge stimulus package of Obama money to build a geothermal plant ($79M loan guarantee plus $66M in grants). Currently, that company is failing but is still able to provide energy for 35,000 homes but only 22 employees were ever hired for all that stimulus money provided. While very optimistic in my opinion, an MIT study indicated that geothermal might be able to supply 10% of US energy needs in the far future.
Solar
The final energy source is solar which can be broken down into two types: solar thermal and solar photovoltaic which provide 0.1% and 1.4% of US energy needs, respectively. Solar thermal plants are typically only located in deserts. Thousands of large mirror panels are arranged around a central tower a couple hundred feet above ground. All the mirrored surfaces on the ground reflect sunlight to the top of the tower. With all these mirrored panels reflecting sunlight to the same spot, the top of the tower gets incredibly hot. Water is circulated to the top of the tower where it turns into steam and expands to turn a turbine attached to a generator. The average power capacity for one of these solar thermal energy stations is approximately 0.12 gigawatts. The disadvantage of this type of power generation is that all the mirrored panels must be computer operated to turn as the sun moves. These power stations only work during the day and are less affective on cloudy days, they require a lot of land, and on top of that, any bird that happens to fly through this light is toast. Due to geographical limitations, growth here is probably limited to 5% max.
Solar photovoltaic electricity generation is basically electricity generated from solar panels, usually located on rooftops. Theoretically, if one could greatly increase the number of solar panels in the US, one could replace coal and natural gas.
There are a number of issues with solar panels that make this theoretical unrealistic. First is the solar panel quantity/size needed to produce a useable output. A typical solar panel is 16.5 square feet and can produce up to 320W in perfect conditions. The actual amount of electricity generated depends on the number of hours of peak sunlight. This varies depending on the latitude, the direction the panels face, the season, and even weather conditions. The solar energy and sun time diminish the further from the equator the panels are located. Summer days are longer than winter days. Obviously, there is more solar energy on sunny days than cloudy or rainy days. Other weather impacts include damage from hail storms or being covered by snow. Solar panels also lose efficiency over time. Assuming that a solar panel provides an average of 250W per month and a typical home uses 7.5kW per month, a minimum of 30 panels would be needed which would require at least 495 square foot of south facing space. Furthermore, keep in mind that solar panels do not work at night. In addition to the solar panels, one would also need to either have a large battery to store power or use power from the grid at night. While excellent is some ways, solar photovoltaic panels have major environmental issues. Several hazardous materials/chemicals are used in their manufacture and there are toxic chemicals that must be disposed after production. Based on manufacturing “costs” (manufacturing and disposal) and location viability, US energy growth could reach to 15%.
Will it be enough?
Figure 41 indicates that the use of coal to generate power (thanks to President Obama) has greatly decreased. Natural gas is still increasing, even at an accelerated rate once fracking become more prevalent. Nuclear power has been about constant since around 1990. Renewable energy has been increasing but at a slow rate of increase. Can you look at this graph and the rate of change for renewables and honestly say that you believe that renewables can replace all electrical power generation from coal and natural gas in 12 years?
Figure 41. US Electricity Generation by Major Energy Source, 1950-2018
Figure 42 shows a summary of potential energy changes per my and other opinions:
| Source | Current Use | My Estimated Use | Change |
| Nuclear | 19.4% | 19.4% | No Change |
| Hydro | 7% | 7% | No Change |
| Wind | 6.5% | 20% | +13.5% |
| Solar Thermal | 0.1% | 5% | +4.9% |
| Solar Voltaic | 1.4% | 15% | +13.6% |
| Biomass | 1.4% | 5% | +3.6% |
| Geothermal | 0.4% | 10% | +9.6% |
| Estimated Growth | 45.2% |
Figure 42. Summary of Potential Energy Changes
Even though I believe that a 45.2% growth in renewable energy sources is an extremely generous prediction, the US needs renewable energy to grow by 63.6% so that all forms of fossil fuels could be abandoned. You are 18.4% short from being able to accomplish the goal. Renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuel in the near timeframe for US energy needs. As I previously mentioned, Liberals are preventing construction of any new dams for hydro-electric power. Liberals are also making it harder for other renewable energy sources due to a desire to conserve nature. As mentioned, nuclear has a negative connotation. If that could be resolved, there is still the issue that Liberals have billions of federal acreage preserved for “nature” which cannot be mined. If you want more nuclear power plants, then you need more sources of uranium. (The Obama administration allowed the sale of 25% of US uranium to Russia.) However, vast uranium deposits are not allowed to be mined. The same impact would be on the necessary minerals to make solar panels. If you cannot get the materials needed, the expansion of renewable energy is impacted. The US has 2 options: 1) do what you can but keep using fossil fuels as required; or 2) do what you can but greatly cut back on electrical use if you cannot meet the 63% total of fossil fuel current usage.
Keep in mind that we have not even addressed gasoline or diesel for vehicles or jet fuel for airplanes. The cost of using fossil fuels is relatively cheap. The cost to convert to alternate energy sources is very expensive in terms of actual dollars and potential environmental costs.
Battery cars are becoming more prominent, but they need electricity. Battery production and disposal is also a significant environmental concern. Also, there are more carbon emissions with manufacturing of an electric or hybrid car than gas cars. If one converted to all electric vehicles tomorrow, then your electric needs across the US just exponentially expanded. As such, your renewable energy source just estimated is way too short.
As for solar panels on planes and cars, that is nearly impossible per engineering principles. There was an experimental plane that was powered by solar panels. It was a very large winged aircraft and was only able to carry one person, the pilot. There is not enough energy from solar panels to power an airplane for all practicality. The plane would need a lot of more solar panels, requiring much larger wings, which would require more energy, which would require more solar panels…
There have also been experimental cars which ran on solar panels. They were incredibly light weight vehicles carrying only the driver and drove on a very flat road (no hills). Here again, solar panel powered cars are currently not engineering feasible.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
There is a potential for a non-fossil fuel source with a lot of energy output potential – Hydrogen Fuel Cells. A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical potential energy (energy stored in molecular bonds) into electrical energy, simplistically shown in Figure 43. A PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) cell uses hydrogen gas (H2) and oxygen gas (O2) as fuel. The products of the reaction in the cell are water, electricity, and heat. This is a big improvement over internal combustion engines, coal burning power plants, and nuclear power plants, all of which produce harmful by-products.
I understand that there is great potential here. However, even as an engineer, I am cautious. I remember my high school chemistry class. My teacher filled a balloon with hydrogen, let it float to the ceiling, then with a match on the end of a long stick, he ignited the hydrogen which produced a very large BOOM. Hydrogen as in the Hindenburg is extremely flammable to being almost explosive.
Currently, Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda have cars with hydrogen fuel cells. Naturally, one would need a proliferation of fueling stations before one would consider buying one of these cars. Personally, I would also wait quite a while to see if there are any problems. As I explained however, there is great potential here for the future, but not yet for me.
I also understand that Germany now has a train that uses a hydrogen fuel cell. There is even a small personal aircraft that uses a hydrogen fuel cell. Promising…
Figure 43. Hydrogen Fuel Cell |
The takeaway from this chapter is a shared opinion by me and many other competent sources that renewable energy will not be able to replace all fossil fuel use in just 12 years. It will be several decades to accomplish if at all. While a noble goal, there will be significant costs to the consumer and to the US economy. As of now, the US is energy independent. For those old enough to remember it, the oil embargo that started in 1973 saw the exponential rise in gasoline prices plus the rationing of gas. All of that was because the US was dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. As a result of that nightmare, there was a desire for the US to become energy independent. The US has reached that goal and is exporting oil and natural gas. As such, oil prices, after inflation, are now only slightly more than they were decades ago. With the low price of oil and natural gas, the cost to replace them will seem to be higher. I do not believe that AOC will be successful with her Green New Deal. Not only is it not practical or even achievable, but it will be hugely expensive.
Summary
There are renewable energy sources as an alternate to fossil fuels. However, even being optimistic, renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuel in the near timeframe for US energy needs. And remember, the US energy usage is only a portion of the world’s energy use. While renewable energy options appear to be the best environmentally, some of the renewable energy options contain hidden environmental and cost factors/impacts that need to be addressed.
By Michael Belsick
Greta Thumberg, other man-made climate change activists, Democratic politicians, and all Liberal Media “talking heads” tell us that man-made climate change is real and the effects will be irreversible in 12 years if we do not act (spend money) right now. Where do they get this information since all of them know little or nothing about science?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The IPCC “stimulates” research in climate science with grant money. The IPCC also monitors all work on climate research. Ultimately, they summarize all the relevant research that they approve and capture that in reports containing a “Summary for Policymakers”.
To answer the above question, every Liberal/Progressive on Earth gets the information about man-made climate change killing the Earth from the bureaucrats in the IPCC. What could possibly go wrong with that?
So, where do the IPCC bureaucrats get their information?
The IPCC provides grant money to climate scientists that will generate climate data and projections that the IPCC wants. The IPCC monitors all research in this field but selectively picks and choses the desirable research, thus they bias the results. The approved research is then selectively summarized into a final report that is then published for all the bureaucrats providing funding to the IPCC. These same reports are then made available to the Media.
If you graduated with a PhD in climate science, where do you get a job to support yourself? One could go work for a major corporation and do what they want. You could teach and do your own scientific research as long as the college was OK with that. You could solicit grant money to do the research that you wanted. What if however, most of the grant money available had “strings attached”?
So, let me summarize how this works:
Just as an example to item 4 above, one scientific reviewer who had their comments included in an IPCC Summary for Policy Makers was dismayed to see that their critical comment was deleted from the IPCC report which dramatically changed their conclusion. That deleted comment was:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
Let’s discuss the possible corruption of the summary reports starting with the originating data.
Remember Dr. Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph of Earth temperature that so greatly alarmed the world due to the significant temperature spike starting since the 1990s?
How does Dr. Mann’s graph (Figure 3 and repeated above) compare to a graph of temperatures as determined by historical (documented) data shown in Figure 35?
Figure 35. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age
In Figure 35, there are written records indicating that Vikings were able to colonize Newfoundland and Greenland and grow crops including grapes. Currently, vineyards cannot grow in these locations due to the cold. There is identical written evidence for northern England as well. For this to have happened, it would have had to be warmer in the year 1200 than in 2020. But that information does not match the “Hockey Stick” temperature chart. Somebody is not telling the truth. Personally, I believe the archeologist and historians.
Here are three more temperature charts (Figure 36 through Figure 38) going back even farther from different authors. None of these four charts matches Dr. Mann’s chart, which is solely used by the man-made climate change believers. If you wanted to convince the world that the Earth is getting hotter due to recent increases in man-made CO2 concentrations, which chart would you show?
Figure 36. 2000 Years of Global Temperatures
Figure 37. 11,000 Years of Global Temperatures
Figure 38. Major Climate Changes over Last 15,000 Years
Climate Research Unit Fraud
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (in Norwich, England) became the center hub of all climate research. Essentially, the CRU and the IPCC are one in the same. In November of 2009, someone “hacked” into the CRU computers and released a thousand emails between researchers, the CRU administration and the IPCC. This controversy became known as “Climategate” for the obvious implication of what happened to President Nixon. Books have been written as to what the general public learned from these first leaked emails and the 220,000 later emails released on March 13, 2013. The following is just a summary of the climate change corruption that had occurred:
Allow me to provide some very interesting quotes from the IPCC that may help to resolve this discrepancy.
Maurice Strong, founding executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program said:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Chair from 2008 to 2015, said in 2010:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore…. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment from 1977 to 1999 said:
“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
H.L. Mencken (Sept 1880 to Jan 1956), American journalist and satirist said:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”
Summary
The supposedly scientific studies indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming comes from the IPCC and is biased. The IPCC provides grant money to those willing to produce the desired data. The IPCC handpicked scientific papers and data favorable to their position. Only this selected information is included in a summary report that is finally handed out to politicians, bureaucrats and the Media. Climate scientists that disagree with the IPCC are attacked, ridiculed, and the IPCC works to suppress any results that do not support man-made climate change. A “whistleblower” showed us that there has been extensive corruption in climate science to promote any research that supports man-made climate change and to suppress research indicating the opposite fact. Leaked moments of honesty by those involved in this corruption indicate that everything that they do has nothing to do with climate change environmentalism. It is all about wealth redistribution.
By Michael Belsick
Everything previously mentioned leads us to a discussion on computers, computer programming, and using computers to make climate predictions. To start, I must begin the discussion by saying that many people give far more credit to computers than what computers deserve. That is mainly because most people don’t understand computers and how they can do what they do for us.
Computers are not “all knowing”. They only know what they have been programmed to know. As such, Artificial Intelligence is still in its infancy. While computers have beaten chess masters, it could be said that the computers “cheated”. By that I mean that for every movement that the chess master makes, the computer can almost instantaneously calculate the next logical move that the chess master will make by running thousands of simulations in seconds. If you remember the 1983 movie called “War Games” with Matthew Broderick, the teenager saves the world by having the computer that controls all US nuclear missiles play tic-tac-toe with itself millions of times, eventually “learning” that tic-tac-toe is a game that can never be won. The point that I am making is that the computer’s advantage over man is not yet intelligence. It is the ability to perform repetitive calculations over and over again in an instant.
When I type a word that is misspelled, the computer instantly makes suggestions based upon how I misspelled the word. The computer does not really know what word I meant to use. How many times has the computer accepted “form” instead of replacing it with “from”? When anyone types a question for Google to answer, the computer identifies key words in that question and looks for the closest reference that human programmers entered in its database. In a way, a computer is like a librarian. When you walk into a library wanting a book, but you are not sure of the title or author, the librarian will search the card catalog (old school) for something close to what you described. Computers do the exact same thing by making the closest suggestion that match what programmers entered. For another example, if you typed a question, such as Hank Aaron’s batting average, Goggle will reply instantly because human programmers entered that data. In fact, not only do you get the answer to what you asked, but Google also offers other options that you may want. However, if you meant Hank Aaron, who is your barber but was a high school baseball varsity player, Google will not provide the information that you seek.
One disadvantage of computers is that the computer’s response is based upon the knowledge and bias of the programmer. During my research into this climate change series of articles, I used Google periodically. Generally, the first responses supported the notion of man-made climate change. The answer that I was interested in was after page 6 or so. In some cases, Google circled back to the responses on page 1. The computer itself had no bias, but the programmer did.
When man-made climate change believers tell you that computers are predicting a climate change catastrophe in 12 years, be very skeptical because those computers are basing that prediction on only what programmers input. In college when I learned and used programming, there was a “golden rule” – “garbage in equals garbage out”. Just to provide a whimsical example, I could use a computer to prove that all Democrats are lying. I would have a computer monitor the mouth motions of a Democratic politician. If I programmed the computer such that every time a mouth opened, a lie was stated, then the computer would calculate that the Democratic politician lied repeatedly. So, any computer prediction is only as valid as the programming that was used.
Climate prediction programs are extremely complex. Although computers are capable of calculating a lot of different scenarios quickly, there is still limitation on how long it will take or the size of a model for realistic purposes. When mechanical engineers, who specialize in mechanical stress analysis, want to analyze what happens when a mechanical part is subjected to external mechanical loads, they build a computer model of the part. Engineers build a 3-dimensional model of that part with maybe a thousand or more “node” points. Each “node” point might be considered as the center block with sticks connecting it to other center blocks as in a 3-dimensional tinker toy. Each node is linked mechanically to all adjacent nodes (up, down, and to each side).
Once the model is built, it is then programmed with how these nodes will interact on each other based on what the programmer thinks will occur. Another programming complexity is deciding which data and algorithms should be used. It is not possible to provide every possible interaction so programmers make assumptions and simplifications. Most times programmers try to make valid assumptions and not show bias but as knowledge is gained, assumptions may need to be changed. At one time all of mankind knew that the sun revolved around the Earth… Algorithms are often simplified because it would either take too long to compute or we haven’t figured out exactly what happens
Take for example the landing gear of a jumbo jet simulating a “hard” landing. An impact load comparable to a “hard” landing is applied to the generated model. That impact force into the wheel is transferred to the landing gear, then travels to each node within the landing gear model, and finally exits the landing gear at the attachment point to the wing or fuselage. If that shared impact load at any of these node points exceeds the mechanical properties of the material, then the part fails. Design engineers, like me, would then need to redesign the landing gear to use a stronger metal alloy or to add more metal to the failed area such that there would be more node points to share this impact load. The computer model is remade, and the program is run again until the model does not fail. If the interaction of the nodes is incorrectly assumed or the wrong material properties (ex., aluminum) are input into the model, the “behavior” of the landing gear will not represent the actual landing gear.
So, how is anything that I just said relevant to a climate change computer model? Imagine the number of nodes and types of interactions required to represent the entire Earth. There are a lot of unknowns about climate parameters and interaction so assumptions and simplified algorithms must be made.
My landing gear was a relatively small part, maybe 4 feet long, with a thousand or more node points and might take an hour to run. How would you analyze the entire Earth? Your options would be to wait a couple of years while the computer runs the analysis or you would have to drastically increase the distance between node points. That is exactly what climate change computer analysts have done. Where my landing gear node may have been a cube of 0.1 inch in all directions, the climate change node likely would have to be a cube 10 to 100 miles in all directions. So, to construct a model for the current computing capability computer could run the analysis in a reasonable amount of time, the climate change programmer had to have a node size so huge, that a significant sized thunder storm could run through the node without indicating any weather change at all. That represents the failure of climate change computer models to construct a model so monstrous in size that it is incapable to registering any minute weather or temperature changes. There is a significant limitation to any computer program trying to analyze something as large as the Earth.
In Chapter 6, I mentioned that clouds and their aerosol components play a major role in climate study. Yet, cloud behavior is usually ignored in climate models which are focused only on the CO2 concentration because it is easier.
For a final comment on computer modeling, the standard process for all programming is to run the model for a situation that is known to see if it properly predicts the known outcome. This is called validating the model. One writes the program, inputs the various values for the computer to calculate all the answers. Then you compare the answers provided by the computer to the known results. If the predicted values match the known values, then your model has been validated. This is an important “proof” that the model will accurately predict the outcome. To date, no climate model has ever successfully been validated. This means that the computer program cannot even predict values that are known. If that is the case, then how can the results of these climate predictions be considered definitive? As I previously said, “garbage in equals garbage out”.
In all the previous chapters, we have learned that there are many different natural forces that can affect the average Earth temperature. Orbital mechanics can greatly affect how much solar energy reaches Earth by changing the distance that the energy had to travel. While this can create significant differences, the normal time period of events is in the thousands of years. The exception is Nutation which briefly shifts the rocking and swaying of tilt angle that happens about every 18.6 years. We are safe for now. On a much smaller time period, we learned that El Nino can affect the weather over just a few years. However, climate scientists seemingly only want to focus on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There are many other natural factors with greater potential for change than man-made carbon dioxide. If climate predictions are only based upon atmospheric CO2, which is increasing, and that increased CO2 equates to increased temperature, then all these computer programs will certainly predict warmer Earth temperatures. Additionally, if the programmers purposely omitted some information, the predicted results would be biased. There really is another side to this debate. In fact, there are many climate scientists that do not believe that a small change of CO2 has the power to cause global warming.
The most important question to address now has to do with why these man-made climate change scientists are so convinced and very vocal that any climate change is due to man-made CO2. With that, I would like to end this chapter and go into the next chapter with a quote from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) which will be referenced again in the next chapter. The quote below also summarizes what this chapter taught us.
“GCMs (Global Climate Models) are complex, three-dimensional computer-based models of the atmospheric circulation. Uncertainties in our understanding of climate process, the natural variability of the climate, and limitations of the CGMs mean that their results are not definite predictions of climate.”
By Michael Belsick
Just as a pre-summary, I thought that it would be prudent to summarize all the variables discussed so far that can affect the weather or climate.
We learned that the sun is our only source of life-giving heat to our Planet Earth. However, the orbit and the rotation of the Earth on its axis can and does change over time such that the sun’s solar energy can be greater or smaller. These changes in solar energy will cause global ice ages about every 100,000 years. Precession and tilt have periods of 24,000 years and 41,000 years respectively. Currently, the Earth is in an interglacial period meaning that we have nice warm weather to enjoy for still thousands of years. The main point of this fact is to say that climate change is real. It has been this way for millions of years. However, it is not as man-made climate change believers want you to understand.
We learned that the Earth’s energy budget accepts all the sun’s energy that shines on Earth and eventually releases it all back into space after bouncing it around the atmosphere to keep us warm at night. The greenhouse gases, with water vapor having more significant impact than carbon dioxide, is primary responsible for this. Anthropogenic climate change believers are telling us that man-made CO2 is trapping more energy causing the Earth to warm unnaturally. However, it was also shown that the Earth has only changed temperature 1.4 degree F since 1850 and there seems to be no proof that this was due to CO2.
We learned that the Earth has its own heating and ventilation system, that doesn’t generate heat or cold, but rather moves heat and cold around the globe. Natural forces generate wind and ocean currents that move this heat or cold around. While people often like this change, there are times when people do not. One example of these unfavorable times is the Santa Ana winds in California that turn a small brush fire into a raging forest fire.
Water vapor in the form of clouds has a significant impact on solar radiation which affects the Earth’s temperature. All the climate predictions from man-made climate change believers ignore the very significant impact that clouds (water vapor – the major component of greenhouse gases) have on temperature because it is too complicated.