Dear Marlo Lewis,

16 Nov 08 – Fred Singer, via his TWTW of 15 Nov 2008, suggested that we submit comments to the EPA over proposed carbon dioxide regulation.

As a retired analytical chemist and webmaster of http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com I would like to submit the following comments, which I hope will be taken into account and receive serious consideration.

By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever. T

he one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth’s surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.

Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area).

If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.

Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.

As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect.

No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it – if only!

All natural heating that takes place in a greenhouse (be it made with glass, plastic, cardboard or steel) is due to the restricted access of the heated air to the open atmosphere, where it would normally disperse its excess heat to the next available cooler molecule of any of the IR susceptible gases in our atmosphere in the cascading manner described above.

To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practised by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma – not science).

It is therefore that I rest my case, as expanded upon on my website (see links below).

Sincerely yours,
Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/theory.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latest.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latestarticles.html

http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/sustainable-crude-oil.html

Oil is hydrocarbon based. That means that it originated from or as a carbon-based life form.

That conclusion doesn’t follow, you know.

As I said earlier, I used to think the whole “renewable oil” thing was a wacko theory, now I’m not so sure. It does seem odd that there exists the sheer quantity of petroleum that we know of, that would appear to require that almost every animal that dies magically has its body fats soak into the planet and pool up. Doesn’t it seem odd that dinosaurs were trapped in tarpits?

Then again, I also used to “KNOW” that manmade global warming was a fact, because the idea was so self evident. And I used to “KNOW” that Santa Claus brought my presents every year.

Or – deep organic material dissolves in it over time and during extraction.

I remember a (Life) documentary by David Attenborough claiming 19x as much life (by weight) below ground as above. Mostly bacteria, some several kilometers deep, – and now there are findings that viruses are even more abundant than first thought and they can survive the weirdest environments and would produce an organic marker.

Or – the Russians did an in depth study on this very hypothesis over 60 years ago. They are prepared to, and often do, drill deeper than the rest of us and no-one ever found a fossil anything at the depths they are prepared to go to. They drill so deep that they need an airlock to preserve the pressure differential between ground level and several kilometers down.

Chemists Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, Marcellin Berthelot and Dmitri Mendeleev, and geologist Alexander von Humboldt (amongst others) published work refuting the fossil origin of rock oil hypothesis.

Experiment has shown the abiotic hypothesis to hold water ;-) A google search of-

“Laboratory-pure solid marble (CaCO3), iron oxide (FeO), wet with triple-distilled water, are subjected to pressures up to 50 kbar and temperatures to 2000 C. With no contribution of either hydrocarbons or biological detritus, the CaCO3-FeO-H2O system spontaneously generates, at the high pressures predicted theoretically, the suite of hydrocarbons characteristic of natural petroleum.”

-will produce salient returns.

Of course this would be hidden from us along with all else worth knowing ;-)

Mushrooms are best kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.

I think you need to learn the difference between how the word “theory” is used in science and how it is used in everyday conversation. This: http://www.notjustatheory.com/ might help you.

Oil is hydrocarbon based. That means that it originated from or as a carbon-based life form. That means that there are either some creatures living under the Earth which we don’t know about, but which sh*t coal and p*ss oil, or that it’s a fossil.

Well said.

Peak oil is the next scam in my sights after AGW. (Just one long list from The Big Bang to…..)

We tend to find oil wherever we look for it. We tend not to look where it doesn’t suit us to. We use up the farthest reserves first while transport costs are lowest. Our closest reserves are kept for a rainy day. The majority of finds are purposefully underestimated and under-reported, which suits the company, the government and the shareholders for similar reasons. We encourage others to “spend” before we have to, even to the point of offering them the chance to tailor slupply and thereby shape demand.

Also, the way the energy companies act I would be astonished if all the tales of suppressed technology and buyout of patents were fabrications, myths or conspiracy theories.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

Jim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Jim

Don’t go all flat-earth on us now ;*)…we need to be open-minded and willing to learn in order to engage in serious debate.

Jim

Alaska’s oil fields will produce about 50% of OOIP (original oil in place).

Weyburn’s Oil Field will eventually produce about 33%, after the CO2 flood. Before, it would have been 25%.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/weyburn.htm

A good chart in here. It shows oil peaking as new tech was applied.

Oil was in a decline, until about 1987, then it peaked, when new vertical well technology was applied. A gradual decline again, until the mid 90s, when horizontal technology was used. Production will peak again in 2011, as the CO2 flood delivers more oil.

As an industry, that’s what we see; new technology freeing up old oil. Current average recoverability is about 25%, but we expect that to reach 30% to 40%, or more, in a decade.

Fossil origin of oil is a theory.

“Magically” is a dodge to avoid thinking.

As for the rest, nah. I won’t go to your level, thanks.