Can human races be saved from 2050-2099 CE destruction?

Existing global warming temperature increase projections identifies end of human races 2050-2099 CE, but most likely 2050-2055 CE.

The EU climate protection target - the 2 oC limit - established by the EU Governments in 1996 and reaffirmed since then by the Environment Council 2003, and European Council, 2005, 2007 CE. Since the 1990s, Europe-U.S. politicians locked-in funding “alternative fuels renewable green energy,” eliminating nuclear energy, and retaining coal economies. China-India governments are also facing hydrocarbon “infrastructure lock-in.” Key issues to curbing global warming “infrastructure lock-in” of the “carbon budget” is to reverse damage done by 260-years of using hydrocarbon energy. Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, the economy, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Russia, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Note that the term "carbon (C)" is inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4); methane has a much larger 20-year, 100-year, and 500-year global warming potential than that of carbon dioxide. Once we edge near carbon dioxide level of 450 ppm it becomes imposable to turn off the global warming effects of the 1750 Christian Era (CE) to date hydrocarbon energy used (coal, oil, natural gas) and natural methane/carbon dioxide release. The IEA found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide (CO2 at 450-ppm is the 2 oC limit). Global warming carbon “infrastructure lock-in” is around 2017 CE.  

Historical Global Warming

To have any reasonable 70% chance of avoiding destruction of human races 2050-2055, global human and natural greenhouse gas emissions are to peak by 2015-2020. If not now corrected, it is almost certain human races will end around 2050-2055. What happens after 2055 end of human races is of little interest. However, some people might want to know what they are missing.

55.8 million years ago -- Caused by excessive human carbon dioxide emissions since 1750 CE and resulting methane emissions - Earth's global warming is similar to Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event of about 55.8 million years ago (Ma), when Pangaea was splitting into separate continents. Within PETM, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and volcanic carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates. Huge amounts of carbon and methane were released into atmosphere and from carbon cycle. PETM globe warmed 5 to 9°C (9 to 16°F). A major difference between current Modern Global Warming Era temperature increase event and PETM is that current temperature increase during beginning stages is about 15 times faster (and accelerating) than PETM event. Global temperature increase is projected to be too fast for Earth or human ecosystems to adapt.

In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes now release about 0.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. How fast carbon and methane enters atmosphere translates to how fast temperature increases after delays. Environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a speed will be devastating.

PETM temperature rose steadily with slow release of greenhouse gas. Today, fossil fuel burning releases carbon about fifteen times greater than PETM, driving global temperature up at an incredible rate. A corresponding rapid increase in powerful methane global warming occurs. Methane also has regional positive warming properties that makes methane an exceptional global warming gas.   

Many of the other natural climate feedbacks that we either already observe today or expect to experience probably took place during the PETM warming, as well. Severe drought would have led to increased wildfires (such as would occur within Amazon), injecting more carbon into the atmosphere. Research shows that permafrost on a then glacier-free Antarctica thawed, which would have also released carbon dioxide and methane. Another interesting source of carbon that some scientists hypothesize is burning of peat and coal seams. Peat is decayed vegetation and has a very high carbon content that also releases methane. Peat, which is found in the soil beneath the surface, can be ignited by something like a wildfire and continue to smolder for as long as centuries. Coal seams can be ignited in a similar way, and burn for decades to centuries, releasing huge amounts of carbon into atmosphere.

252.28 million years ago -- Atmospheric gas composition, physical properties, and quantities determine rate of Earth’s global warming properties. Within End-Permian Mass Extinction Period 252.28 Ma, natural volcanic gases and natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates (vented from volcanic Siberian Traps). However, within Modern Global Warming, human hydrocarbon economy energy use (coal, oil, natural gas) and responding natural ocean methane clathrates and carbon dioxide release dominate temperature change rates.

A major difference between Modern Global Warming temperature increase event and End-Permian Mass Extinction 252.28 Ma is that Modern Global Warming Era temperature increase during the beginning stages is ALSO about 15 times faster than the End-Permian Period and there are more than 9 billion people involved who depend upon potable water and global environment resources.

Modern Global Warming Era is an accelerated End-Permian Mass Extinction, about which no one survives global warming temperature increase.

Interglacial Cycles -- Natural historical Earth interglacial temperature cycles result from natural carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) levels that are determined by changes of the sun’s relative position to earth orbit (described by Milankovitch Cycle orbital variations and occasional increased volcanic activity). A 1976 CE study, published in the journal Science examined deep-sea sediment cores and found that Milankovich's theory corresponded to periods of global warming and cooling.  

Indeed, ice ages had occurred when the earth was going through different stages of orbital variation. Resulting from current greenhouse gas emissions, “natural” earth temperature interglacial cooling cycle will not occur again for millions of years.  

Natural historical Earth interglacial cycles are ~100,000-year temperature cycles. Current Milankovitch Cycle is now driven by ~250 years of human hydrocarbon energy (coal, oil, natural gas) activity that produces human and natural greenhouse gas emissions. Today's human "climate increase" is about 100 times faster than Milankovitch Cycle "natural change."   

Modern Global Warming

Since ambient 1750 CE pre industrial times, Modern Global Warming concentrations of greenhouse gases has increased significantly. Greenhouse gas increased above natural global warming concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increased ~39% and methane (CH4) concentration is increased ~164%. 1750 CE tropospheric concentration greenhouse concentrations levels were 280 ppm and interglacial methane peak levels 700 ppb. Carbon dioxide concentrations levels are ~390 ppm and for methane are ~1,850 ppb.  

Very huge deposits of Arctic Region methane clathrate (or methane hydrates) results from millions of years of natural leaking oil and natural gas deposits and degradation of organic compound methane (CH4) (methane clathrate is about 85% natural gas). Methane is 105 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20-year period, taking aerosol impacts into account. If methane clathrate gun triggers due to warming Arctic Ocean currents, Earth’s temperature could rapidly rises tens of degrees.  

Tools for assessing the expected climate effects of actual levels of human-made and natural changes of atmospheric composition include (1) Earth's paleoclimate history, showing how climate responded in the past to changes of boundary conditions including atmospheric composition, (2) modern climate change, especially global satellite observations, coincident with rapidly changing human-made and natural climate forcings, and (3) climate models and theory, which aid interpretation of observations and are useful for projecting future climate/temperature under realistic most probable to 2099 CE human and natural temperature forcing scenarios.

Stresses of increased populations, increased hydrocarbon energy use, increased gross domestic product (GDP), increased natural methane release, and resulting increased global temperatures is evident. Most probable projections over time include uncontrolled population growth, limited technology changes, limited changes to energy use, critical political decisions not made, limited funding for effective clean nuclear energy, and several proposed impossible legislated changes to fundamental laws of physics by untoward politicians and surrogates. Not yet proposed are changes to global warming business as usual politics.  

In 1970s, U.S. nuclear energy facilities were capped to assure about 80% of electrical energy supplied would be from hydrocarbon energy. By 1980s, it was well known that global warming was a growing problem. In 1990s - 2010s, politics gamed global warming responses to increase profits from "green" alternatives to nuclear energy. Congressional responses to global warming temperature increase remain sidetracked for continued political and special interest corruption, payoffs, and political control of national and global hydrocarbon energy sectors. While reviewing global warming articles, care should be taken because there are many intentional deceptively written materials and presenters.   

Can human races be saved from 2050-2099 CE destruction? Not without willing politicians and a great deal of time and material spent on nuclear clean energy investments between now and 2017 CE carbon infrastructure lock in of global carbon budget. Since there is no functioning organization or system (except for U.S. military and intelligence services) that is capable of directing necessary changeover to clean nuclear energy, most likely human races end date is 2050-2055 CE.  

Global Warming - Is A Now Under 30-years Event

Politicians and media dominate our lives. With elections more important than the lives of humans, politicians and media never identify global warming temperature increase, that which is going to kill their children.       

The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” have become all but taboo on Capital Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena, and have been since 2010. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) SAID on October 13th, 2011, “It has become no longer politically correct in certain circles in Washington to speak about climate change or carbon pollution or how carbon pollution is causing our climate to change.” Why?

President Obama spin and reelection teams are redefining the neo communist decades of involvement in critical events. Not only is there political re-identification of global warming, the Obama team is presenting errors, omissions, distortions, and word games, by government departments and internet site/PC hacking that are rewriting history and redefining America’s future. By using many different words to describe a intentionally poorly defined global warming event, President Obama’s teams avoid public awareness of the increasingly great risks posed to all who are now under the age of 30-years.

The administration has clearly responded to increasing hostility (on one end of the political spectrum) towards the effort to address climate change, scrubbing out words like global warming, cap-and-trade, and climate change from agency communication. The media alters their articles and programing to match President Obama’s climate change in “terms and rhetoric.”

Although global warming life-terminal implications were known in the 1990s CE, U.S. political leadership decided to continue expansion of U.S. hydrocarbon (coal, oil, natural gas) economies; the global warming event was minimized by U.S. political leadership, and so it remains. U.S. and global clean nuclear energy expansion was withheld to assure that energy increases would be satisfied with national hydrocarbon expansions. Around 2005 CE, there was a push by political criminals and their special interests to promote “alternative renewable green energy.” Promotion of alternatives to energy was successful for politicians and political special interests; taxpayers payed US$ 100s of billions in alternative-renewable energy projects and paper while increases in global warming greenhouse gases continued.

The fate of global temperature increase is determined. Around 450 ppm carbon level, Earth’s atmospheric carbon results in Earth becoming a source of carbon with increased human carbon releases and increased Arctic Region methane release — sometime around 2050-2099 CE Earth temperature regulation enters Modern Global Warming Era thermo runaway; human races end shortly thereafter.  

It is the now under 30-years who are sure to die from global warming.    

The ratio of the administration’s usage of “climate change” versus “energy” has changed significantly since Obama’s 2008 campaign days. “Climate change” rhetoric saw its brief heyday in 2009, thanks to the popularity of the President, the streamlined message of the unified European-U.S. neo communist party government, and the hope for legislative action before the United Nations climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. The ratio of energy to climate rhetoric has steadily increased, and the phrase “climate change” is routinely omitted in favor of clean energy-related diction. President Obama at Copenhagen, Denmark, December 2009 (COP15), redirected global warming responses to neo communist schemes for global transfers of wealth. President Obama and left Democrats have set back valid global warming responses by more than a decade.   

President Obama and left Democrats are avoiding their responsibility in global warming temperature increase with a coordinated attempt to nationally and internationally politically redefine the Modern Global Warming Era physical events. To confuse the public and avoid responding to global warming temperature increase, President Obama’s teams are dividing global warming solutions into many different divergent thoughts.   

There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. These political choices of word and thought are also reflected with unusually rapid changes in news coverage around the world. Now it is politicians who dominate what is said and when it will be said within the news media:   

"A dangerous shift in Obama’s ‘climate change’ rhetoric"

By Maxwell T. Boykoff

Published: January 27, 2012

Washington Post

What happened to “climate change” and “global warming”?

The Earth is still getting hotter, but those terms have nearly disappeared from political vocabulary. Instead, they have been replaced by less charged and more consumer-friendly expressions for the warming planet.

President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday was a prime example of this shift. The president said “climate change” just once — compared with zero mentions in the 2011 address and two in 2010. When he did utter the phrase, it was merely to acknowledge the polarized atmosphere in Washington, saying, “The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change.” By contrast, Obama used the terms “energy” and “clean energy” nearly two dozen times.

That tally reflects a broader change in how the president talks about the planet. A recent Brown University study looked specifically at the Obama administration’s language and found that mentions of “climate change” have been replaced by calls for “clean energy” and “energy independence.” Graciela Kincaid, a co-author of the study, wrote: “The phrases ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ have become all but taboo on Capitol Hill. These terms are stunningly absent from the political arena.” [Brown University research project LINK: Climate and Development Lab - RUNNING FROM CLIMATE CHANGE: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S CHANGING RHETORIC, December 22, 2011]

In 2009, the Obama administration purposefully began to refer to greenhouse gas emissions as “carbon pollution” and “heat-trapping emissions.” This change is evident in statements from top officials such as White House science adviser John Holdren, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Lubchenco told a reporter that the choice of those terms “is intended to make what’s happening more understandable and more accessible to nontechnical audiences.”

These choices are also reflected in news coverage around the world. My colleague Maria Mansfield and I monitor 50 major newspapers in 20 countries, and we documented that explicit mentions of “climate change” and “global warming” dropped by more than a third from 2010 to 2011. [CSTPR LINK: MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING - World Media Coverage; 2004-2011 World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change of Global warming]

There is power in how language is deployed, and people setting policy agendas know this well. In 2002, Republican political strategist Frank Luntz issued a widely cited memo advising that the Bush administration should shift its rhetoric on the climate. “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of global warming. . . . ‘Climate change’ is less frightening than ‘global warming,’ ” the memo said.

Luntz was not alone in wanting to change the terminology. The nonprofit group EcoAmerica issued a report in 2009 arguing that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” both needed re-branding. In their place, the group recommended the phrase “our deteriorating atmosphere.”

But what do we lose when global warming and climate change get repackaged as clean energy? We wind up missing a thorough understanding of the breadth of the problem and the range of possible solutions.

To start, talking only about clean energy omits critical biological and physical factors that contribute to the warming climate. “Clean energy” doesn’t call to mind the ways we use the land and how the environment is changing. Where in the term is the notion of the climate pollution that results from clear-cutting Amazon rain forests? What about methane release in the Arctic, where global warming is exposing new areas of soil in the permafrost?

“Clean energy” also neatly bypasses any idea that we might need to curb our consumption. If the energy is clean, after all, why worry about how much we’re using — or how unequal the access to energy sources might be?

And terms such as “carbon pollution” ignore that climate change isn’t just a carbon issue. Some greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, do not contain carbon, and not all carbon-containing emissions, such as carbon monoxide, trap heat.

When the president moves away from talking about climate change and talks more generally about energy, as he did in the State of the Union, calling for “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” the impact is more than just political.

Calling climate change by another name creates limits of its own. The way we talk about the problem affects how we deal with it. And though some new wording may deflect political heat, it can’t alter the fact that, “climate change” or not, the climate is changing.

Maxwell T. Boykoff is an assistant professor in the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the author of “Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.”

NOTES:

1. “Climate” included the phrases Climate Change, Changing Climate, Climate Negotiations, Climate Bill, and Global Warming.

2. “Energy” included Clean Energy, Renewable Energy, Green Energy, Energy Economy, Energy Technology, Energy Independence, Energy Dependence, Energy Efficient, Energy Efficiency, Energy Security, Energy Capacity, Energy Supply, Energy-Saving, Energy Plan, Energy Policy, Energy Bill, Energy Jobs, Energy Industry, Energy Production, Energy Use, Energy Grid, Energy Future, Energy Development, Energy Revolution, Energy Prices, and Energy Needs

Fin

How can President Obama not know of global warming temperature increase when his administration is changing thoughts involving multinational decisions, trillions of energy dollars, and the lives of 9 billion people in 2050-2099 CE.

The president’s intentions are revealed by his weak rhetoric and avoidance of anything tainted with the terms climate change or global warming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere doesn’t understand our delicate sleights of tongue, only the gases that continue to belch from our cars and smokestacks.

Carbon budget refers to the contribution of various sources of carbon dioxide on the planet. Carbon budget has nothing to do with political agendas, climate change legislation, carbon controls, carbon storage, economic, or geopolitical carbon footprint. Carbon budget is a physical event. Infrastructure coal plants and oil extraction methods in countries of China, India, Europe, Canada, the U.S., and other nations are rapidly being constructed right now. Hydrocarbon infrastructures are going to last another 50 years plus, at least. Nations are now “locking-in the global carbon budget.” International Energy Agency’s (IEA) found we are about five years away from building enough carbon-spewing infrastructures to lock-in a hydrocarbon infrastructure and make it extremely difficult — if not impossible — to avoid greatly exceeding 450-ppm carbon dioxide. The point of global warming no-return comes around 2017 CE.  

World Leaders must establish the intent to save human races 2050-2099. This identification of intent is a Modern Global Warming Era temperature reduction goal. A greenhouse gas-reduction statement must contain identified results over time, carbon dioxide and methane atmospheric levels, units of measurements, Earth temperatures, consider all global warming forces, probabilities of achieving events, stated starting levels, and goals. Modern Global Warming Era starting goal for greenhouse natural and human gas reduction is 1750 CE historic carbon dioxide peak levels (~280 ppm) and methane peak levels (~700 ppb). The political and physical goal is to achieve human survival well past 2100 CE.  Tempus Fugit.  

Global Warming - 2009-2010 Washington DC

The European-U.S. years of “renewable alternative green energy” drive was further enabled by withholding permitting for U.S. expansion of nuclear energy and Germany leadership shutdown of its nuclear energy facilities. U.S. politicians, insiders, special interests, and global criminals all had/have access to U.S. renewable green energy funding; specifically, renewable energy political corruption of renewable green energy funding under US$ 90 billions of the $850 billion ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009).  

Added to the problems of political promotion of renewable energy crime, corruption, and special interests is the decades of information suppressed regarding the direct 260-year impact of both human and natural carbon dioxide emissions and direct impact of natural methane emissions. Arctic Region methane and carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing since 1750 CE to the point of noticeable human induced global warming impact. The combination of natural and human greenhouse gas accumulations influences global temperature increase produces a clear “thumbprint” of human impacts on climate change. A positive temperature regenerative feedback loop was and continues to be established within Arctic Region methane. Coincidentally the global carbon budget is reaching a 2017 CE saturation point. Unless there is a quick and effective political response to combined atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and methane, there result a global warming temperature increase that terminates human life 2050-2099 CE.     

White collar political criminal activity has a long history within the U.S. Its activity rises and falls with political supplies of legislated funding. To one degree or another politicians are aware of political corrupting of the legislation system, but turn away from correcting (or reporting) criminal activity. Because government white collar crimes are part of political systems, prostitution for internal sponsored political fraud is difficult. For politicians it is better to sleep with criminals than it is act against self interests or come out and act for the best interests of humanity.  

Renewable green energy is about US$ 90 billions within the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009). Renewable energy legislated “Stimulus” is systemically flawed; criminal monies are non recoverable; funding is (mostly) legally legislated and processed. Political white collar crime has been around longer than U.S. criminal mafia activity, and before the 1980s rise of the U.S. illegal drug industry. U.S. illegal drug industry is backed by drug cartels and has U.S. political support. Concealment and billions of dollars in money laundering of political white collar crime uses similar procedures as used by organized crime: front companies, legal companies, international trading, bank transfers, poor/fraudulent contracting, kickbacks, over charging, collusion, redundant funding, systems of government non accountability, etc. Multinational carbon cap-and-trade markets are trading paper, which requires that the whole political European-U.S. system of renewable green energy to be investigated.      

Since the 1990s, wind, solar, geothermal, and alcohol fuels (corn ethanol) are developed as corruption schemes for politicians to channel US$ 100s of billions dollars government money to special interests while controlling political special interest US$ trillions within national hydrocarbon economies. The pretext is that renewable energy investments are a solution to global warming temperature increase. For more than three decades the pretext for not building nuclear facilities is that nuclear facilities are “unsafe.” The reality is green energy, hydrocarbon energy, and political special interests destroyed human races while nuclear energy could save human races.  

U.S. Global Warming Foundation Legislation

UN’s ‘Earth Summit’ formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992. The UN Kyoto Protocol is an agreement of UNFCCC. Significant U.S. legislated with presumed support of the 1992 UN Earth Summit: U.S. ‘Energy Policy Act’ (1992), ‘Energy Policy Act’ (2005), and ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009).

Example of Direct and Indirect Energy Funding Impacts  

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review of the conference version of the 2005 bill estimated the ‘Energy Policy Act’ would “increase direct spending” by $2.2 billion over the 2006-2010 periods and by $1.6 billion over the 2006-2015 periods. In addition, the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the legislation would “reduce revenues” by $7.9 billion over the 2005-2010 periods and by $12.3 billion over the 2005-2015 periods.  Energy Policy Act total direct and indirect costs are many billions. The CBO noted that the bill could have “additional effects on discretionary spending,” but did not attempt to estimate those effects. That was for a Congressional relatively small budget bill compared to the mother of funding bills, the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA 2009).     

Some ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ (ARRA) 2009 Renewable Green Energy Examples of Concern

The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing (undefined) energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various non standard types. The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration. In the case of Keynesian-global-warming, U.S. legislation transferred wealth without producing a product that can decrease the global temperature increase.     

● $6 billion for renewable energy and electric transmission technologies loan guarantees for solar, wind, and “smart national grid.”

● $6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear weapons production sites). This $6 billion useless spending and is a promotion of anti nuclear corruption and payoffs to PORK BARREL political special interests.

● $4.5 billion to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) as outlined in the legislation.

● $4.5 billion to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings (GSA)

● $3.25 billion for the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for power transmission system “smart grid.” Political power transition is intended to expand the hydrocarbon industry.  

● $3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for power transmission system (smart SYNCHROPHASOR western grid)

● $3.4 billion for carbon capture and low emission coal research

● $3.2 billion toward Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants

● $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program to help states invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

● $2 billion funding for manufacturing of advanced car battery-traction systems and components.

● $800 million funding for biofuel research, development, and demonstration projects

● $602 million is to support the use of energy efficient technologies in buildings and within industry.

● $400 million funding for the Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP)

● $400 million for electric vehicle technologies

● $300 million for state and local governments to purchase energy efficient vehicles

● $300 million to acquire electric vehicles for the federal vehicle fleet (GSA)

● $204 million is insignificant funding for research and testing facilities at the well managed U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories and Technology Centers.

● $190 million in funding for wind, hydro, and other renewable energy projects

● $115 million is part of billions of dollars to develop and deploy solar power technologies in the solar panel industry.

● $110 million is for the development of high efficiency vehicles.

The 2009 CE left Democrat Congress legislated ARRA 2009 as a blank check to be filled in by President Obama. There is to be an in depth accounting of the more than US$ 90 billion 2009-2010 CE global warming renewable energy expenditures and performance.    

Tempus Fugit

Left Democrat administration continues to tinker with government departments’ data and the reporting of national energy and global warming. All U.S. federal government data and reporting are now considered unreliable. Much of university and college global warming R&D is controlled by left Democrats through control of state and federal government grants and funding. Colleges, universities, and government departments’ reporting is considered unreliable when it comes to left Democrat foundation topics and social history. The Internet has and is being falsified to favor the causes of left Democrats. Internet attacks are mounted against individuals whose expressed options that conflict with established political funding procedures. Media corporations are extremely politically biased, oriented to presenting the public with unrealistic biased views. A significant amount of left Democrat smoke and mirrors political misdirections has been directed at building up U.S. special interest funding for expanding “renewable alternative green energy.”  In effect, since the early 1990s, left Democrat leadership are the cause of delaying real global warming responses.        

With the exception of expanding nuclear power, all other U.S. national energy proposals and policies are NOT viable. U.S. and global energy policies simply do not reflect real clean energy needs and real energy growth demands. Life-cycle process of all human energies (except nuclear energy and hydroelectric) emit large amounts of human carbon dioxide and natural methane.  

Since first global warming awareness of the 1960s, a great deal of necessary response time has passed, but there is still hope for changes to global warming temperature increase. Politicians just have to soon find the time and funding to alter established global warming course of events.