Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING - THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR
Date:	9/19/2013 12:59:53 PM (updated 9/19/2013 1:02:31 PM)

"The evidence (for anthropogenic global warming) is overwhelming and the science is clear," Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday.  [FoxNews, 19SEP13] 

What evidence?  What science? We (real geoscientists) have not seen any evidence… especially any unadulterated data. When will scientists be able to hear the presentation of this theory and see data and experiments in an open scientific forum? (Please Google “the scientific method.”) 

"The threat from climate change is real and urgent. The basic science behind climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide makes the Earth warmer, and we are admitting more and more of it into the atmosphere." [ibid] 

Carbon dioxide makes the Earth warmer? Uh… how does that happen? Show historical proof of that.  Please explain the relationship of CO2 to the Younger Dryas and the Medieval Warming Period.  When was the highest ever CO2 concentration?  

“Moniz added that any stabilization of surface temperatures in recent years was an indication of a ‘hiatus’ of global warming, not an end to global warming.” [ibid] 

None of the AGW models predicted anything but a steady increase in global temperatures.*  The models were inconsistent with one another and have never been presented in a scientific forum for independent verification. Please present this new “hiatus” concept and the data and proof (right now the UN’s IPCC is struggling to reconcile this “pause”).  

* “That report (journal Nature Climate Change) compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, 3 were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.”

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	BEING GOOD STEWARDS
Date:	9/22/2013 1:18:18 PM (updated 9/22/2013 1:20:24 PM)

“I would concede we could/should do a better job of managing our resources.” [muddauber]

 Dauber has it right.  There are many actions and activities in the world where mankind is cr@pping up his own bed. I say “his own bed” because natural processes (erosion) will erase ALL evidence of mankind within a few million years of the departure of Homo sapiens as a species. And we will likely be the cause of our own departure.

The greatest resource at risk is fresh water. Less than three percent of the Earth’s water is fresh.  Of that, less than ONE percent is available for drinking. HERE is where we should be primarily addressing environmental insults. Google “Copperhill, TN” or “Love Canal.”

We should be recycling and striving for energy efficiency. Wind power is an inefficient blight on the land and itself an environmental insult. Solar power needs lots of work especially with respect to scale. At present, solar power is also an environmental insult. The only currently viable energy options are nuclear, hydro-electric, natural gas, and coal.  If anyone tells you otherwise… he (or she) is just telling you how he feels about it. Your duty is to minimize the amount of energy you use. Scientists and engineers are obligated to improve energy production. 

Or the EPAs Priority Pollutant List:

http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/permits/generic/prioritypollutants.pdf

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	want a list
Date:	9/22/2013 1:23:53 PM (updated 9/22/2013 1:24:24 PM)

If you wish a copy of either publication, send me an email address and… the number of requests being reasonable… I'll send you a copy of the full document.