Carbon Credits and “Climate Change”

We have just concluded assisting several customers in evaluating potential benefit of becoming carbon-neutral or in purchasing carbon offsets as a means to improve profitability and projecting a public image of environmental stewardship. A summary of the conclusions reached are:

“Based on careful analysis of the data, we have determined the ‘carbon trading’ and ‘carbon offset’ / ‘carbon neutral’ environment to be an elaborate scam based on a wholly false premise. While any corporation is right not to project a hoggish image, there is absolutely no benefit towards participating in the perpetuation of a complete falsehood–even a well marketed one. At best, it will make your organization complicit in the continuance of a lie and at worst shows potential customers and investors a culture of complete ineptitude and incompetence.”

Our scientific analysis team took several months to carefully examine the so-called link between carbon dioxide (CO2) and potential rises of median (and local) earth’s temperature. It came to the conclusion that this was complete hogwash.

To do this, our team carefully examined the adsorption spectrum of carbon noting the peaks in the IR band (there are three prominent peaks in the adsorption spectrum of carbon; one is irrelevant towards capture of re-radiated black body emission. The other can be significant but the fractional degree need be assessed. This is done by setting up numerical integration for the fractional area under the adsorption peaks and then scaling this to the total IR spectrum where it might play a role). One need then look at the re-radiation efficiency of earth in absorbing the entire spectrum of electromagnetic energy and re-emitting that within the IR band (this was quite a task for our team to model) as well as atmospheric diffractive adsorption which hindered electromagnetic spectrum radiation toward making it TO the earth to be re-emitted IR. The differential change over the last 200 years (200 to roughly 400 parts per million CO2) was scaled as was the contribution of carbon within CO2 itself (12/44ths of mass). When fed to our mathematical modeling team with IPCC numbers, they determined the effect of incremental change of carbon in any form of earth temperature over the last 200 years to be trivial. In layman’s terms, if scaled to a window which was used to let out heat — a window that opened two feet — the possible change caused by increase of CO2 (which was from ALL sources; not just burned hydrocarbons) amounted to nine millionths of ONE inch.

Our team then looked at variations in the ‘solar constant’ — the aggregate power output of the sun–and found significant variation within the ten to the minus four to ten to the minus three range. Unfortunately we can measure this ‘heat in’ only to roughly one part in ten thousand. However, EACH change within that ten thousandth of precision ambiguity is over three orders of magnitude above what the entire concentration change of CO2 over the last 200 years (assuming it can be accurately measured that far back which is dubious) might possibly be able to have done.

In short, there is no way that the change in CO2 over the past two hundred years — or that projected into the next several decades–can have any significant contribution on terrestrial temperatures, climate, or weather.

We then examined historical models by the consultants and so-called ‘scientists’ providing data to the IPCC. In all of these cases, precision tolerances of measurements were far greater than any possible effect (for example, if your radiocarbon dating has a 5 percent tolerance over 10,000 years that means you can only date a sample to plus or minus 500 years–which is greater than the entire recorded time and temperature measurements available for analysis). People tend to forget the Lewis And Clark expedition was just over 200 years ago–and it’s very unlikely they were carrying precise thermometers and electronic quartz-crystal based timepieces to record precision temperatures over the entire midwest.

So D-J’s conclusion is that the concept of fossil fuels combustion causing earth temperature change is a complete myth perpetrated by propaganda based sources. These propaganda based sources exploit the psychological changes caused by the large change in information availability. It’s not the weather or climate has really changed that much (and one must remember the climate is ALWAYS changing by forces far beyond humans control) but the degree of information flow HAS changed. Compared with the late 1960s, we have so much more information at our fingertips that it can be used by less than honorable people to shape perceptions and this is exactly what has happened with the Carbon scam. The weather and climate really aren’t any different, but we can measure things much more precisely at many more locations and then transmit this information much more quickly. The first commercially available NEXRAD images transmitted to wide audiences didn’t happen until the 1990s; climatic changes happen over thousands of years. But if a person SEES more weather it can shape their perception into believing erroneous information and theories. While we can measure much more precisely, there are miscreants who have taken the ability to measure and transmit– and extrapolated this into completely false models. Which is why we see the faked data scandals and the dire models failing.

The situation has gotten so far into the false paradigm that ‘Global Cooling’ and the popular ‘Imminent Ice Age’ of the 70s became the ‘Global Warming’ of the 90s. The name was changed to “Climate Change” as a propaganda tool not only to cover up the past ‘scientific’ failures but also to create an indisputable rhetoric term (the climate will ALWAYS change quite naturally with man’s impact being next to nothing). Now, mankind CAN make his local surroundings junky for a period of time, but even this mistreatment is erased over a few generations (nicely illustrated by rivers which used to burn now being clean). No one at D-J advocates unrestricted REAL pollution (SO2, NOx, cadmium, mercury, complex persistent organic hydrocarbons, heavy particulates) which do real harm. These rightly need to be mitigated commensurate with the situation. It IS the position of D-J that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and that over the years, we simply got too clean–so some miscreant bureaucrats chose to target a compound that will always be present in combustion–no matter how clean that combustion is (including individuals breathing out CO2 as a result of metabolism).

OUR advice to those considering being a part of this fraudulent scam is to opt out completely. We all love efficient things; there’s no harm in embracing efficiency and energy sources that work for YOUR application. Most are conservationists loving pristine outdoors and clean water and air (which we have and all love). But stay away from the ‘carbon credits’, stay away from the marxist ‘green’ narrative (which we see only as a vehicle to promote corruption, graft, and communism), and stay away from this junk science. USE the form of energy that best works for YOUR application.