Hot Air

If the climate Chicken Littles are right and burning fossil fuels to warm our homes and produce electricity is also warming our atmosphere, then I have a solution. I suggest that we somehow capture all the hot air coming out of the Libs in their attempt to remove President Trump from office ... and use it to replace that produced by burning hydrocarbons.

Headlines

Mexicans protest Trump administration’s latest deportation plan

After its strongest year in a decade, Apple stock is historically expensive

US embassy attack on Baghdad ... pro-Iran mob ... Trump: Tehran will pay

Lindsey Graham’ There will be no Benghazi on Trump’s watch

CBS airs picture of Elijah Cummings during segment about Rep. John Lewis’s battle with cancer

Fugitive ex-Nissan chairman, Carlos Ghosn says he fled Japan to escape ‘injustice’

Buchanan: Will war derail Trump’s re-election?

Joe Biden: ‘We’re all dead’ if we don’t stop using fossil fuels

Trump claims America stopped terrorist attack in Russia, Putin called to thank him

This decade saw Warren Buffer finally turn his back oh IBM and jump big time into Apple

Consumer confidence unexpectedly drops on dimmer outlook ...

Joe Biden: I would consider a ‘decent’ Republican for my running mate

Mars

I read recently that the atmosphere of Mars is 95% carbon dioxide ... see: Atmosphere of Mars. This surprised me since the atmosphere here on Earth is only 0.04% CO2. Now I understand that the Martian atmosphere is much thinner (1%) than it is on our planet, but it is still revealing and prompts the following observations:

- Mars obviously has no fossil fuels since it is questionable if it ever supported any life that left a legacy of hydrocarbons ... nor does it have any internal combustion engines. So where did this CO2 come from? The answer must be that there is a natural out-gassing from volcanoes and vents occurring there and, not having any plant life to convert this carbon dioxide to sugar and oxygen over the eons, this gas has kept building up. This also strongly suggest that this process must have happened, and probably still does occur, here on Earth.

- Being that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and given its huge percentage there, the temperature on Mars must be extraordinarily high. But no, it is cold enough there to freeze this CO2 into dry ice around it’s polar regions ... see picture above. Huh?

- Elon Musk is pointing to Mars as being the refuge that we must inhabit to escape from our Earth that is destroying itself with CO2-produced global warming. Why would we seek to flee to a planet that has many thousands of times more percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide than we have here at home? Do government subsidies for electric cars and rocket ships have anything to do with this?

Afterward: Thinking more about Earthlings settling Mars — Mars obviously has no ozone layer like we do on Earth that protects us from the sun’s lethal cosmic rays. This would complicate the habitation process there enormously ... possibly too enormously.

Modern Fables

Socialism works, it just hasn’t been done right yet

Trillion dollar federal deficits don’t matter

Human fetuses aren’t people

The planet has a fever

Women are not treated as equal with men

The Clinton Foundation does much important charitable work

All religions are moral and upright

Free healthcare and child care are human rights

NYT: ‘All the news that is fit to print’

Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016

Food allergies are rampant

Everyone should go to college

Wisdom comes best from our youth

Solar and wind energy can replace fossil fuels within 12 years

Semantics

There has been a subtle shift in the semantics being used by Obummer and John Kerry when crowing about the squishy results of the Paris Climate Accord. Instead of talking about reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, they are now taking about targeted reductions in "carbon." Now this seems like a trivial difference but it truly isn't. Smoke is comprised mainly of unoxidized carbon and its reduction is a good thing ... with which most civilized people can agree. Whereas CO2 is the source of all life on Earth ... and its reduction is not necessarily a good thing. During the Carboniferous Period (360-300 million years ago) CO2 was 10 times higher than it is today, yet the Earth survived well ... thank you very much.

In fact this 60 million year period in our planet's formation is when most of the oil, coal and natural gas was laid down underground. Ponder on this for a moment. All the lush vegetation that was growing in this CO2-rich environment is the source of most all of the fossil fuels that we use today. 60 million years is 20 times longer than when the earliest man appeared on Earth and 30,000 times longer than the period of time since the birth of Christ. That's a good long time with a whole lot of vegetative growth ... and thus a whole lot of fossil fuels ... much more than I suspect we currently estimate. Yes, some day we will run out... but this is many lifetimes away ... and I believe that our sources of energy then will not be wind ... maybe sunshine ... but more likely safe fission and fusion.

So our administration's purposeful obfuscation of the term "carbon" to imply both smoke and CO2 is disingenuous and purposefully confusing. ... an attempt to lead the uninformed to its way of thinking. How very semantically Orwellian!

See also: Power Line Blog.