Muslims don't understand the Western mind

Vincent J. Curtis

31 Dec 23

RE: Inclusivity, empathy, and respect needed. Op-ed by Ibrahim Hindy, who is the religious direct at Yaqeen Institute for Islamic research, and imam at Dar-al-Tawheed Islamic Center.

It’s a little late for Muslims to begin calling for inclusivity, empathy, and respect after Hamas slaughtered over 1,200 Israeli citizens, took over 240 hostages, and committed unspeakable atrocities against beautiful, young Israeli women.  When the mutilated corpses of those women were dragged in triumph through Gaza, the populace, quite gratuitously and unnecessarily, spat upon them in contempt.  Israel has business to finish with Hamas before turning to the issue of what to do about Gaza and its populace.

The author, Ibrahim Hindy, does not understand the Western mind.  He thinks that by calling attention to the alleged suffering of Gazans in a war their government started, that we will turn against Israel. In World War 2, the allies killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin, and other German cities; and firebombed many cities in Japan, which culminated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Westerns can be more savage than the Muslims imagined.  The alleged suffering in Gaza is nothing compared to what a Westerner is capable when roused to righteous anger.

Gaza is getting nothing more than what it asked for, and less than it deservers. The goal of Hamas and all “Palestinians” is a Palestine “from the river to the sea,” which requires the genocide of the Jews, something the Muslim author neglects to mention.  It’s not as easy this time as it was the last.

Business first.

-30-

There’re scientists and then there’re King Canutes

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Dec 23

RE: We can’t abandon climate targets.  Op-ed by Steve Easterbrook, professor and director of the school of the environment at the University of Toronto.

You’d expect a professor and director of the U of T school of the environment to be a serious scientist and, as such, to be up on his science.  Not so. Professor Easterbrook makes a pathetic plea, in the manner of a King Canute, that “we”, meaning Canada, can’t give up on “the 1.5ºC target.”

The hard and most current science from serious atmospheric physicists is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from 400 to 800 ppm will result in a global temperature increase of only 0.72ºC. Either the professor knows of this fact and ignores it, or, worse, doesn’t know it.

Conspicuous by their omissions are serious explanations: like, 1.5 above what? “Pre-industrial” temperature is the commonly given answer, except what is that number, exactly? None dare say what, because the moment they do, they can be challenged as to how do they know it? Truly global temperature measurement did not come into being until 1979.  It’s 1.5 above a guess.  The current global average temperature is 14.45ºC, and the IPCC requires a GAT of 16.3ºC to make its radiation budget work; so we have plenty of leeway in any event.

Finally, Professor Easterbrook is talking to the wrong people.  Canada contributes 1.5 percent of global CO2 emissions, while Asia contributes over 50 percent. Heroic efforts by Canada won’t solve his issue with CO2, and Asia doesn’t buy into this Western mania about atmospheric plant food.

Some scientists are more serious than others.

-30-

See my “How Will Happer computes temperature increase” 20 Oct 23 entry of this blog.

 

What do you think they’re fighting for?

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Dec 23

RE: Should we celebrate while war rages? Editorial by Julia Marach, who “lives with her family in Inivano-Frankvisk Ukraine.” The Hamilton Spectator 19 Dec 23.

War is raging for Ukrainian independence, and what do we get? An essay on some non-combatant’s feedings: her dreams of garlands, and embarrassment at her alleged “friend” upbraiding her for thinking pleasant thoughts while “our soldiers are freezing in the trenches.”

What in hell do these self-absorbed fairies think Ukrainian soldiers are fighting for?  They’re fighting so that Ukrainians can do Ukrainian things in a free Ukraine; and that includes Ukrainian girls being beautiful, and dreaming of pleasant things like celebrating Christmas.

If you want to be one with your soldiers freezing in the trenches, remember it is for your sake and your country’s sake they are doing it, so keep being and doing the things they are fighting for.

-30-

Ukraine in NATO?

Vincent J. Curtis

11 July 23

Ukraine in NATO?  What a dumb idea!

The latest, greatest, and dumbest idea for NATO expansion is to admit Ukraine into the alliance.  Never mind that Article 5 of the NATO pact - that an attack on one is an attack on all - would place the NATO powers, including Canada, at war with Russia.  What could go wrong?

Look at Ukraine’s pre-2014 frontiers.  The Russian city just across the eastern border is Rostov-on-Don, where the Don River empties into the Sea of Azov.  In 1941, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt drove Army Group South in Operation Barbarossa over 800 miles through modern Ukraine; and in mid-November, 1941, captured Rostov-on-Don.  Rundstedt assessed that his army lacked the strength to hold the city against Russian counterattacks, and ordered his army to withdraw to an excellent defensive position on the west bank of the Mius River, about 45 miles to the west, in Ukraine.

Hitler went nuts over Rundstedt’s withdrawal, sacked him, and replaced him with Walter von Reichenau who, agreeing with Rundstedt, persuaded Hitler to complete the withdrawal.  The next year, 1942, the main German offensive began from Army Group South’s winter position, and German armies advanced eastward to Stalingrad and southward into the Caucasus, the capture of the oilfields of which was the aim of the offensive.

Ukraine in NATO would enable the placement of German, American, and other forces at the starting position of Germany’s 1942 offensive.

Napoleon began his advance on Moscow in 1812 when he crossed the Niemen River, which runs near the modern Polish-Belarusian border.  Napoleon advanced 600 miles, roughly, to occupy Moscow.  Army Group Center, in 1941, advanced 750 miles from occupied Poland, and reached the outskirts of Moscow in one campaign.  It’s about 400 miles from Kharkov to Moscow.

Lenin sighed at the losses of territory in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Baltic States in the short-lived Treat of Brest-Litovsk.

Ukraine in NATO would give German, French, and American armies jumping off points that Russia has only seen deep in a war.  That Russia is unconquerable on account of space suddenly may not be true when the space between the enemy’s starting points and Russia’s vital political and economic centers are dramatically shortened.

It may be hard for us to understand, but Russian political leadership is suspicious of America’s good intentions; and having a senile, grinning sock-puppet as president does not inspire Russian confidence in American motives, or actions.  Imagine Russian President Vladimir Putin as a Russian patriot, and he’s confronted with the prospect of what, for hundreds of years, was Russian territory absconding to the empire of Western Europe.

In Barack Obama, Putin detected weakness, and immediately after the 2014 Sochi Olympics, he seized the Crimea, with its vital port and fortress of Sevastopol, from Ukraine.  America accommodated itself.  The prospect of Ukraine joining the EU or NATO began to percolate, until Donald Trump became president.

Trump offered American friendship to Putin, and raised Putin’s personal prestige.  Howling at the uselessness of NATO, Trump forced NATO countries to spend $100 billion more on defense.  Trump howled about the corruption of Ukraine - how it interfered against him in the 2016 election, and how Ukrainian interests paid off the Biden family.  But, Trump also gave Ukraine lethal aid in the form of Javelin missiles, which Obama never did.  Trump showed a dexterity in foreign policy not seen since the days of Nixon and Kissinger, embarrassing and offending the Washington foreign policy establishment.  Nothing happened while Trump was president.  Putin saw strength, was outmaneuvered, but Trump kept Ukraine out of NATO.

In Joe Biden, the weakness is palpable.  Facing the real prospect of Ukraine entering the embrace of the EU and NATO, Putin struck.  The Russian military let him down, and he was unable to install a puppet regime in Kiev; but he does possess a land bridge from Rostov to the Crimea, as well as the mineral rich Donbas region.

A status quo armistice would suit his purposes for now.

-30-

 

Worthless credentials

Vincent J. Curtis

7 Dec 23

RE: Heat pumps are an important tool. By Norman W. Park and Heather McDiarmid. Park is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at York University and Chair of the Education Committee of the Group of Seniors for Climate Action Now.  McDiarmid is the principal at McDiarmid Climate Consulting, and is a research associate that the University of Waterloo. The Hamilton Spectator 7 Dec 23

Economist Thomas Sowell observes that it can be hazardous to be a high IQ, low information writer, and Norman W. Park, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, and Heather McDiarmid, a climate consultant, demonstrate this hazard in their article.

They claim, “Heat pumps…are two to three times more efficient than burning natural gas for heat.”  This is arrant nonsense. The authors couldn’t even be bothered to check the Carrier website for its cautions about heat pumps.  You can burn natural gas in your furnace to heat your home, or you can burn it in an electrical generator which powers the heat pump, which, in turn, rather inefficiently tries to heat your house when its cold outside.  The authors don’t grasp the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

They also claim that heat pumps “move heat and don’t generate it,” as well as, “by using electricity, they generate no greenhouse gases.” Actually, the motors and pumps do generate heat; and greenhouses gases are generated to power the heat pump if natural gas is used to generate the electricity.

The proffered credentials of these alleged experts aren’t relevant to the topic they write about, and even a college student can pick out the flaws in the argument.  Unfortunately, the public is flooded with “credentialled” nonsense like this, while the people really qualified and knowledgeable on the subject, like 2022 Noble Laurate in Physics John Clauser, and Will Happer get cancelled.

-30-

Alberta says no!

 Vincent J. Curtis

5 Dec 23

RE: Canada proposes new methane emissions rules. CP story by Mia Rabson. The Hamilton Spectator 5 Dec 23.

In 2014, Alberta agreed to commit to a reduction of its methane emission by 45% by the year 2025, and achieved that target early, in 2022.  Now, quite arbitrarily and without consultation, Minister of Climate Change Steven Guilbeault announces to the world that Alberta will eliminate nearly all its methane emissions by 2030.  As recent court cases have demonstrated, the Federal government has no authority to impose such a standard.

Guilbeault knows this, and doesn’t care.  Needless to say, Alberta has grown tired of this style of arbitrary governance and is about to invoke her Sovereignty Act to assert that she will not be bound by this commitment, and will fight in court, if necessary, to resist this imposition of arbitrary and unconstitutional assertion of Federal power.

What’s thunderingly stupid about this whole matter is that methane is of no consequence as a greenhouse gas.  It ranks a distant fourth on the list of GHGs after water vapor, CO2, and ozone.  The contention that methane is so much more powerful as a GHG falls apart under critical examination.

There’s the lab, and then there’s the real world.  In the real world, methane’s infra-red absorption peak is masked under a large band of water vapor absorption, and the absorption peak is in a low energy part of the spectrum.  In addition, methane only comprises 2 ppm of atmospheric gases. It simply isn’t worth the economic effort, nor the risk of destroying confederation over.

Canada won’t survive four more years of the arbitrary nonsense of fanatics.

-30-

 

$28 Million for Amateur Hour

Vincent J. Curtis

30 Nov 23

RE: Low friction ‘contributed’ to crash. By Matthew vn Dongen and Nicole O’Reilly The Hamilton Spectator 30 N0v 23.

At $28,000 per page, the report by Justice Herman Wilton-Siegel must be the most expensive engineering opinion of a rank amateur ever paid for.  Low friction “likely contributed?” Well, duh! Friction is the resistance to movement of two interacting surfaces sliding past each other, and there are two types: static friction, the friction to be overcome for sliding to begin, which is always greater than the second type: sliding friction.  Tires rotating at speed experience static friction, until sudden braking or swerving causes static friction to be overcome and sliding friction to begin.

The most egregious item of wrongful judicial finger-pointing was to say that former engineering director Gary Moore engaged in “misconduct” because he dismissed an unsolicited sales gimmick and didn’t share it with colleagues as he found it “senseless.”  Wilton-Siegel believes that if Moore had shared the so-called report with engineering colleagues, the city “could have taken steps sooner.”  Then again, maybe they wouldn’t - if Moore’s engineering colleagues shared his opinion about the senselessness of the Tradewind’s contentions and evidence.  Wilton-Siegel offers pure speculation; and he fails to state which of Moore’s colleagues would have recommended a multi-million dollar repaving so soon after its initial construction.

Wilton-Siegel hinted at, but didn’t point a judicial finger at, the environmental groups whose demands were satisfied by building the RHVP with numerous tight curves with insufficient banking in the curves.  I said at the time that this was endangering human lives, but nobody listened, or cared.

-30-

*REPOSTED* The city could have saved themselves several millions of dollars if they had simply accepted the following as the findings of the judicial inquiry:

 I blame the wackos

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Feb 2019

Trouble with the Red Hill Expressway?  Water doesn’t drain away quick enough?  Road weaves too much?  Asphalt a little slick?

I blame the wackos – the environmentalist wackos who have afflicted the Expressway project since the 1970s.

You have to be of a certain age to remember the vigor and intensity of the opposition to building a road that became part of Hamilton’s official transportation plan in 1963.  Remember the save the valley campaign of the 1970s and early 1980s?  The professional integrity of every engineer who supported the plan was unscrupulously attacked.  The NDP government of Bob Rae withheld funding.  When construction finally began, wackos were trying to live in trees to halt it.  This die-in-the-last-ditch resistance was based ostensibly on environmentalism.

The environmentalist wackos claimed that the rare Red Hill flying squirrel would go extinct if the road were built.  The wackos claimed that the Red Hill valley was a “lung” of the city, purifying the air, and the city would be overwhelmed with air pollution if a road was run down the “lung.”  No objection went unused.

The Consolidated Hearings Board of 1985 recommended approval of the project to the Ontario government with a proviso that the design of the road take into account some of the concerns of the wackos.

An important thing to understand about environmentalism is that it places a higher value on the “environment” – whatever that means - than it does on human life.  One concern of the wackos was that storm run-off from the road would “scour” the bed of the Red Hill creek, whose course, being natural, mustn’t be touched.  Well, some modification was inevitable, but the engineers took the rate of run-off concern seriously.  There are large catch basins at the top of the Expressway that collect run-off, and the flow into the creek is throttled.  The initial design didn’t work out so well, and some flooding of homes occurred.

The banking of curves in roads is important in the speed at which those curves can be safely taken.  The greater the banking, the higher the safe speed.  But the higher the banking, the faster the run-off of water.  If the degree of banking were low to reduce the speed of run-off, and hence the “scouring” of the creek bed, it would mean that water would remain on the road longer and the safe speed of the curve would be lower – wet or dry.

If, in addition, the road were made curvy rather than straight in order to accommodate the existing creek bed and to reduce the rate of run-off, you create a road that imposes more lateral forces on the traffic than is necessary.  Lateral forces that engage with the low banking in the unnecessary curves.

Two other gestures to the wackos were: to call the road a “Parkway” rather than an “Expressway” and to set the speed limit at a low 90 kph.  Under normal conditions, a highway speed of 100 kph would be expected, and I’m sure a speed study would show that average traffic speeds are at least that or more.  The difference between normal highway speed and posted speed limit tends to create a differential of 30 kph under normal conditions, on a curvy road with low banking.  On dry pavement in daylight, no big problem.

On wet pavement or at night, a large speed differential could become a problem if drivers don’t adapt to the conditions and if slow drivers don’t politely stay in the right lane.  Straight road, less of a problem.

It’s rich to watch vengeful wackos laugh in grim triumph as the city encounters alleged problems with the Expressway.  If the city is having problems is it because the traffic engineers who designed the road didn’t follow the purest principles of good road construction but shaved at the edges to accommodate the concerns of the wackos?

The climate of recrimination created by wacko tactics in the past may be corrupting management of the problems caused by accommodating wacko concerns.

-30-

 

Vincent J. Curtis testified in support of the Expressway before the Consolidated Hearings Board in 1985.

 

 

 

Flacking for Trudeau

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Nov 23

RE: Questions of Conservative judgement. Editorial The Hamilton Spectator 28 Nov 23.

Flacking for the Trudeau Liberals in media has become intense over the last few days, as the spectre of their hero losing the next election to Pierre Poilievre become more real. Belatedly, they’re trying to “define” Poilievre, which means they’re trying to smear him, making him unacceptable to the general public and even to polite society.

The consistent lines of attack are: his questioning about the potential terrorist attack on the Rainbow Bridge, his unchivalrous discourtesy to a female CP reporter, and most especially, the CPC vote against an update of an existing Free Trade treaty with Ukraine.

The CPC voted against the trade deal update because one provision mentioned a requirement for carbon taxes. Ukraine already has a carbon tax, and so does Canada; so why should this even be in a treaty update? What the provision does is lock Canada’s carbon tax into an international trade treaty, meaning that Poilievre, to repeal Canada’s carbon tax, will also have to abrogate all, or part, of an international treaty.  If the CPC had voted for the update, it would give Trudeau cause to crow about Poilievre having voted for a carbon tax. You won’t hear this explanation in the Trudeau flacking MSM.

The Rainbow Bridge business was thought so much to be a potential terrorist attack that the FBI were called in to investigate, who found it not to be. As for the MSM whining about Poilievre’s unchivalrousness towards a female CP reporter, who attempted a gotcha question, well, equal treatment works both ways.

The Left is known to coordinate its actions, but the degree of similarity of lines of attack against Poilievre in the MSM makes one wonder how deep the collusion goes.

-30-

The glory of the hockey-stick

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Nov 23

RE: World racing well past warming limits as carbon emissions rise. AP story by Seth Borenstein, The Hamilton Spectator 21 Nov 23

The glory of hockey-stick climate “science” is that its phenomena aren’t bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. For example, in ordinary physics, moving past a “tipping point” results in an irreversible forward movement in that direction, often with accelerating speed.  Not so in climate “science.” The hockey stickers believe that, with enough earnest effect, one can reverse the irreversible sudden forward acceleration.

As reported by AP’s science writer, the lacklustre Seth Borenstein, “the 1.5-degree goal is based on a time period measured over many years, not days, ‘scientists said.’” So, the tipping point isn’t really a tipping point; it’s just a permanent increase in global temperature, confirmed after many years. And so, that the world passed 1.5 degrees for 86 or 127 days this year, doesn’t matter; it’s only a foretaste of what’s to come!

As for the earnest effort, “To have an even money shot at keeping warming to the 1.5C limit, … countries have to slash their emissions 42 percent by the end of the decade.” Since this is science, why is this claim merely an “even money shot?”

Actual atmospheric physicists have computed that doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in an increase in global temperature of 0.72C. That’s it. Raising the question, what the hell are the hockey-stickers actually measuring to say 1.5 or 2.0?

The big mystery is the claim of 1.5 “above.” Above what?  Above “pre-industrial levels.” Well, what’s that number; they must have one to say that we’re 1.5 above it?  They won’t say, because once they do, the game is up.  First question, how do you know, given there were only ten stations measuring temperature in the whole world in 1850, and most of them were in the US? And if you say it’s 12.8C, then 14.8C doesn’t seem all that dangerous.

The game of the hockey-stickers is to keep the donkey moving forward by holding a carrot in front of it, while beating it mercilessly with threats and imprecations.

-30-

Empty credentialism

Vincent J. Curtis

18 Nov 23

RE: More gas plants threat to health. Op-ed by Dr. Mili Roy. The Hamilton Spectator 18 Nov 23.

If there is anything remarkable about the op-ed penned by Professor Dr. Mili Roy, it is how casually she exposes her complete ignorance of the subject she is writing about.  It is as if no serious professionals familiar with the matter and the allegations this which eye doctor is making don’t read the popular press.

Her analysis of an alleged looming climate crisis is nothing rldr but the usual banal nonsense you read about in the mainstream media. She’s either unaware of, or dismisses out of hand, claims by dozens of famous scientists who say there is no climate crisis, the claims of global warming are vastly overstated, and are nothing to worry about.

Her claims about natural gas (methane) display a particular lack of refinement. There’s the lab and then there’s the real world. Methane is not a dangerous greenhouse gas: first, it’s only present in the atmosphere at 2 ppm concentration; it’s infra-red absorption is in a low-energy part of the infrared spectrum, and that absorption peak is itself overlapped by a water vapor band besides.

Her claims of health harms are absurd. Methane is clean-burning, has none of the potentially harmful chemicals that are found in raw coal, and produces no particulates upon combustion. That’s why natural gas stoves can be safely used in the home.  The claim that “air pollution causes 6,600 premature deaths in Ontario each year” is a canard first floated by the OMA in 2005, when they claimed 1,500 premature deaths per year to support their demand that Ontario shutdown her coal fired power plants in Nanticoke and Lambton. When I challenged the OMA’s claim, demanding to see death certificates, the OMA responded vigorously to obscure their admission that there weren’t any. Quite obviously, the adjective ‘premature’ creates a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

There is absolutely nothing to Dr. Roy’s claims; hers is just another example of waving the authority of her eye doctor credentials to pretend to authority in physics and chemistry. And she's obviously never seen a natural gas stove.

-30-

Amateur advises the Pro

Do your homework

Vincent J. Curtis

17 Nov 23

RE: Poilievre needs to drop the complaining. Op-ed by Craig Wallace.  The Hamilton Spectator 17 Nov 23.

Once again, we see complete political amateurs giving advice to the professionals. Craig Wallace advices Pierre Poilievre to “stop complaining!”  (It’s just too damned effective right now against the reviled Justin Trudeau.)

Wallace doesn’t ask for much, only “a detailed, peer-reviewed, science-based alternative policy.” Wallace needs to do his homework.  Environmental economist Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph has been doing research on carbon taxes since the 1990s, and he’ll find instructive McKittrick’s article in the October 6, 2020 Financial Post entitled, “If carbon taxes work, why all the new regulations?” Trudeau’s carbon tax was not based on “detailed peer-reviewed science.” Taxing an inelastic demand doesn’t reduce demand.

But here is some peer-reviewed policy alternative: do nothing.  Canada’s contribution to world CO2 emissions is negligible; and China, India, and Russia are paying no attention to this Western mania about plant food in the air. Even if you believe the Western mania, there’s nothing Canada can do about it.  And the hard physics is that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will cause a 0.72℃ rise in global temperature. Nothing to worry about; it’ll get lost in the noise.

Poilievre will have a lot of brake-slamming and reversing to do in his first term.

-30-

Renewables' real costs

Vincent J. Curtis

11 Nov 23

RE: Why Ontario should embrace renewables. Op-ed by Gideon Forman, a policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation.  The Hamilton Spectator 11 Nov 23.

The article by a propagandist from the Suzuki institute should be read with great skepticism.  In 2010, University of Guelph economist Ross McKittrick calculated that it would require 7 MW of nameplate wind generation to replace 1 MW of conventional generation because wind is that unreliable.  In addition, behind every windmill is a natural gas generator to supply power when the wind isn’t blowing.  Beyond that is all the addition copper wiring and transmission lines required to tie together these widely separated windmills, whereas conventional generation (including nuclear) have a tiny footprint compared to a wind generating facility.

Wind power is considered baseline power, meaning the grid has to take the power when it’s generated, no questions asked; meaning keeping the grid stable is a continuous engineering challenge.

Another unmentioned problem with windmills is their short service life.  Siemens AG of Germany is in serious financial trouble because the windmills they sold in Europe with an expected lifetime of 25 years turned out to have only 12 years of actual service life.

I don’t trust for a moment the quoted cost of $48 per MW-hr of production with all the subsidies built into the renewables project.  The capital costs and cost to the environment that these enormous facilities themselves have are completely ignored in the Suzuki cost analysis.

Ontario is far better off looking to develop its nuclear capability with nat gas generation providing on-demand peak power.  That is, if Ontario wants a stable, cost-efficient grid without fear of blackouts.

-30-

Climate Scammin’

Vincent J. Curtis

15 Nov 23

RE: Report shows world struggling to get on track in climate change fight.  AP story by Seth Borenstein. The Hamilton Spectator 15 Nov 23

AP’s senior climate propagandist uncorked another stinkeroo with his report on science papers hectoring “the (Western) world” for not getting with the program. Most people understand a far-fetched claim, citing a cause so remote it can’t possibly be true; they also understand the adage “Many a slip ‘twixt lip and cup.”  Well, those are some of the problems with the propaganda regurgitated by the lackluster Seth Borenstein.

‘More people dying of heat’ is fakery in several respects.  The first is statistics; the researchers can’t possibly know for sure that the numbers they claim are right; but we do know that more people die every year from cold than from heat. Another problem is that the temperature this year is the same as it was in 1998, all intervening years being less than 1998, so how can people be dying in greater numbers from global warming, when it didn’t warm in the period? Oh, they’re comparing 1991-2000 to 2012-2022. Sorry, statistics from India and China in 1991-2000 are not reliable. Look, to die of heat takes a lot more than an invisible change in climate. (Climate change is what’s supposed to happen in 2100.)

Speaking of India and China, they and Russia are the reasons the world will never get with the climate program, and together these nations contribute half of the world’s annual CO2 emissions. Westerners can wring their hand and don sackcloth and ashes, and it won’t matter a damn to rising CO₂.

Luckily, the hard physics of it is that the Green House Effect of CO2 is already maxxed out, and doubling CO₂ from 400 to 800 ppm has negligible effect on global temperature, a mere 0.72℃.

The world will never “get back on track” because more than half of it doesn’t buy into this Western mania about CO₂.

-30-

More from the Linney Bin & other stories

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 23

RE: Students to take part in climate rally. Op-ed by Grant Linney, who boasts of being trained by Al Gore in 2010 and having given over 200 presentations on climate. The Hamilton Spectator 14 Nov 23.

If there’s anything good about students out protesting over climate, it’s that they won’t be in class having their heads stuffed with nonsense about climate change.  Grant Linney worries over the psychological harm coming to students because of this “existential crisis on young people,” which amount to nothing more than his propaganda.

What is “climate” anyway? Climate is an opinion of what the weather should be based on the previous 30 years. The planet is still warming from the Little Ice Age, and some experts believe still warming from the last (Pliocene) ice age.  There is no correlation between rising CO2 and temperature, as there have been period of falling and long periods of stable global temperature despite continuously rising CO2.

The business of 1.5 or 2.0 was pulled out of a hat, for no one know what the best climate possible is; perhaps the Holocene Climatic Optimum, from 9,500 to 5,500 years ago when temperatures were much higher than today.  Nevertheless, the latest climate physics shows that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in a temperature rise of only 0.72℃.  Nothing to worry about.

If there was a prison for spreading climate misinformation, Linney belongs in it next to his pal, Al Gore.

-30-

 

Waddle the plank

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 23

RE: HCA Climate plan doesn’t match threat, director says. Story by Richard Leitner.  The Hamilton Spectator 14 Nov 23

Some of the climate crazies on the HCA board are worse than others.  Brian McHattie, for instance, thinks that the HCA, by its own heroic actions, save the planet, or at least the HCA lands, from “climate change” by its own heroic efforts.  In the grip of some fever or other, McHattie was heard to expostulate about a need for “extraordinary responses”

HCA Climate Director Fionnula Wade tried to soothe the feverish McHattie with comforting words about having spent scads of thousands on an EV SUV, and will now spend near four-score thousand more on multiple places to plug it in - and receive a grant of 5k for it!  In addition, near three-score thousands were spent on a building, and reduced its carbon footprint by 22 tons per year – the equivalent of five gas-powered vehicles off the road, she gushed.

The average carbon footprint of a Canadian is 20 tons per year.  The HCA could have saved all the money and still cut its CO2 emissions if Brian McHattie quit the board and the place left unfilled. The amount could be doubled if Wade’s position were deemed redundant.

-30-

Nothing to offer

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 23

RE: Advocates call on Council to reform Board of health. Story by Teviah Moro. The Hamilton Spectator 14 Nov 23

These “advocates” want a Board that reflects the city’s diversity. What they mean by diversity is unclear: is it racial diversity, sexual diversity, diversity in professional competence, or these and more?

Nothing could be more democratic, representative, professional, as well as responsible than the current organiztion of the Board, which consists of 16 city councillors who are informed by public health staff.  These ‘advocates’ want something, on the grounds of diversity, that isn’t representative, is less professional, and, most importantly, isn’t responsible.  The bad, new idea would be of a Board that is “fully separate from council” and have “final decision making power” – and here’s the funny part – with powers shared between the city’s elected representatives and ‘”community representatives.”

These advocates need lessons on civics before they can seize control of the Board of Health; the city council are the community’s representatives, by law not self-appointment.

The first question Councillors should ask the advocates is, “where are you going to get the money?” and the second is, “who is going to enforce your ‘final’ decisions?”

The genius of the British-Canadian constitutional principle of political fusion is found in the current structure of the Board; change will only result in inefficiency.

-30-  

 

 

Foreigners hectoring Canada

Vincent J. Curtis

9 Nov 23

RE: Major fossil-fuel producers failing on climate targets, jeopardizing transition. CP story by Jordan Omstead. The Hamilton Spectator 9 Nov 23

Speaking of jeopardizing: the cosseting, jet-setting climate nuts who authored this report are hectoring Canada about not reducing Alberta’s oil production, while spreading nonsense about an alleged climate crisis, in order to protect their comfortable incomes.  They don’t care about middle class people who have to scratch out a living, except to the extent they don’t want to become one of them.

By some accounts, the world is already 1.8℃ above “pre-industrial” temperatures (never giving a firm number), and the climate hasn’t fallen, collapsed or dissolved in chaos as we were long promised.  In short, another climate hoax.  The figure of 1.5 was pulled out of the nether regions.  There is no evidence that the planet’s current climates (for there are many) are the absolute best that can be, and that anything warmer, as occurred several times since the end of the last ice age, would be disastrous to the world.

The hard physics of it is that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would increase global temperature by 0.72℃, nothing to worry about; and no reason for the Western world to destroy its economies just to shut-up incessant Marxist fear-mongers.

A growing world, to escape mass poverty, will need growing quantities of oil and gas; and Alberta, Canada, is helping to sustain global economic growth.

-30-

The Assault Rifle 1918-1967

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Mar 23

1918-1942

Since the “assault rifle” ban in the United States (1994 to 2004), a lot of public debate in Canada has gone into what an assault “style” rifle is.  Rifles and assaulting being of professional interest to soldiers, below is an account of some elements of the evolution of assault style military rifles.

We start with the Browning Automatic Rifle (M1918).  Designed by the legendary John Moses Browning, it was to be used by American troops in the assault of German trenches in World War I.  Many of the assaulting troops would carry these things.  Upon leaving the trench, the BAR-man would fire a round from the hip every time his left foot hit the ground to keep enemy heads down - so-called walking fire - and in the final assault, the rifle would be switched into automatic mode.  The BAR fired the full powered .30-06 Springfield cartridge, and was, of necessity, long and heavy to be controllable when employed in full auto mode from the hip.  It was fed by a 20 round detachable box magazine, which gave it a lot of firepower for the day.  The BAR was not designed for clearing trenches, just getting there.

Despite its original purpose, the BAR is not considered an assault rifle.  It’s too heavy and unwieldy for close-in work - as it had to be because it fires a full-powered rifle cartridge.  The BAR was never tactically deployed in WWI, and was used as a squad support weapon in WWII and Korea.

Also developed in WWI was the Bergmann MP-18 (Maschinenpistole 18), the first submachine gun. It was issued to German sturmtruppen in 1918.  It fired the 9 mm Parabellum pistol cartridge.  Shorter and handier than a rifle, it was effective in trench fighting.  Submachine guns are not considered to be assault rifles because the cartridges they fire lack power and range.  Since submachine guns typically fire from an open bolt, they lack useful accuracy beyond 50 yards, whereas rifles are accurate beyond 300 yards.

Between the wars, the British developed the famous Bren light machine gun.  It was purpose built as a squad support weapon, and features a quick detachable, replaceable barrel; meaning it isn’t a rifle. The Bren could be used in walking-fire mode.  Because it has a replaceable barrel, the Bren is a step up from the BAR.

The German MP-38/40 submachine guns, designed by Hugo Schmeisser, are not considered assault rifles: the 9 mm cartridge lacks power and range, and the weapons simply lack the accuracy of a rifle.  The Machine Pistol idea will be important later in the war.

The M1 Carbine was developed befor the United States entered WWII.  It fires the .30 Carbine cartridge, which is like a hot .357 Magnum – powerful but still pistol-ish.  The M1 Carbine was developed to replace the Colt M1911 handgun.  The M2 Carbine is the fully automatic version of the M1.  The M2 is on the verge of being considered an assault rifle because it’s select fire, but the cartridge is a little light for serious rifle work, and the M2 Carbine is not considered an assault rifle by the experts.

In WWII, the Germans developed the FG-42, a rifle for their parachute troops.  This rifle is short, light, and handy for a rifle.  The 20 round detachable box magazine enters the left side of the receiver above the trigger group.  It fires the full powered 7.92x57mm Mauser cartridge, and is select fire.  It was designed to fill the gap when the squad LMG, the Maschinengewehr (MG)-34, wasn’t available.  (The disastrous assault on Crete was behind its development.)  Though modern even by today’s standards, the FG-42 is not considered an assault rifle because that full-powered cartridge makes the rifle hard to control in full-auto fire unless the bipod is deployed and the rifleman is prone behind it.  It was not designed for clearing trenches or rooms; it was a paratrooper’s rifle (Fallschirmjagergewehr).

##################################################################

1943-1960

The first “assault rifle” was designed by Hugo Schmeisser (of MP-38/40 fame) between 1938 and 1943; it represented his vision of the next generation of military firearm, combining the attributes of a submachine gun with a rifle.  It was designated the StG-43, succeeded later by the StG-44/MP-44.    StG stands for “Sturmgewehr”, literally storm rifle, following sturmtruppen. Storming was something the Nazis thought was grand - the party published a weekly newspaper called “Der Sturmer.”  From sturm we get storming or “assault.”

Giving it the sexy name “sturmgewehr” (vice the technical designation maschinenkarabiner machine, or automatic, carbine) was a way of selling the concept to Hitler, who didn’t buy it anyway because he wanted semi-automatic sniper rifles developed for mass production.  The program was renamed MP-44, for Hitler would accept new development in submachine guns.  The StG-43/MP-44 was select fire, chambered the 8 mm Kurz intermediate power cartridge, was short, reasonably light, and handy.  It was fed by a 30 round detachable box magazine.  The 7.92X33 mm Kurz was created by shortening the parent Mauser case, and using a bullet of the same diameter but of shorter length, reducing bullet weight from 198 to 125 grains.  Recoil from the 8 mm Kurz was significantly lessened.  The MP-44 put a lot of easy, controllable firepower into the hands of the infantry soldier, and the rifle could still reach out effectively beyond 300 m.  The troops loved it.  It was automatic like a submachine gun, and not as punishing as the Mauser K98k.

During WWII, the Soviets were famous for their submachine guns and their tank riders.  After the war, the AK-47 was developed based on the example of the MP-44, and was to replace the submachine gun in Soviet service carried by the tank riders.  The AK-47 was select fire, and was supplied by a 30 round detachable box magazine.  It fired the 7.62x39 mm cartridge, first developed for the SKS.  The AK-47 is considered an assault rifle even though originally deployed as a submachine gun replacement; it was, however, carried by assault troops.

The SKS, fielded in 1945, was designed to be the replacement for the Mosin-Nagant 91/30 in Soviet service.  It was semi-automatic only, was fed by a 10 round internal magazine, and chambered the 7.62x39 mm cartridge.  The SKS is not considered an assault rifle.

After WWII, the U.S. developed the M-14 to replace the M1 Garand.  The M-14 was designed to be select fire, but the cartridge it chambered was the full power 7.62x51 mm NATO cartridge, making this light-ish rifle uncontrollable in full auto mode.  Neither the M1 Garand nor the M-14 are considered assault rifles.

Now we come to another American firearms genius, Eugene Stoner.  His first major offering was the Armalite AR-10.  It chambered the 7.62X51 mm NATO cartridge and was fed from a 20 round detachable box magazine.  Employing aluminum and plastic, it was remarkably light and handy; its straight line design made it more controllable than the M-14 in full auto fire, but you still couldn’t clear a room with one on full auto like you can with a submachine gun.  The AR-10 came too late in trials to be accepted by the U.S. military, but it was manufactured under license overseas and sold to a number of militaries of minor countries during the 1960s.

The AR-15 was a miniaturization of the AR-10.  Stoner developed a bullet for the notably accurate .222 Remington cartridge, so that it would pass a military test for lethality; and with some tinkering, the .223 Remington was born.  The AR-15 chambered it.  The USAF was interested in replacing their M1 and M2 Carbines with which their guard troops were equipped, and the AR-15 attracted favourable attention.  Colt also attracted interest in the AR-15 from East Asian countries, whose soldiers were often 5’2” and 120 lbs.  The M1 Garand, which the U.S. offered in military aid, were beasts for soldiers of that size, and the AR-15 sold itself.

########################################################################

1960-1967

Armalite sold its patents on the AR-10 and -15 to Colt in 1960.  Because of problems manufacturing the M-14 and of the pressing needs of the war in Vietnam, the U.S. DoD began, in 1963, ordering AR-15s, designated the XM-16E1, in hundreds of thousands to fill the gap until something better was developed and in production.

Well, it turned out that nothing better came along, and the M-16 and its lineal descendants remain the standard issue service rifle in the U.S. today.

The AR-15 today now refers to a semi-automatic only version of the original Stoner rifle and its subsequent modifications.  Colt started selling semi-automatic rifles branded “Colt AR-15” on the civilian market in 1964, the same time Colt began filling large US military contracts.  These rifles were made semi-automatic by deleting the auto sear from the trigger group.  Hence, our question is, “is the M-16 an assault rifle?”

The M-16 fires an intermediate power cartridge and is select fire.  It’s controllable in full auto mode, can fill the role of a submachine gun but not that of a light machine gun.  By these criteria, the M-16 is an “assault” rifle, though it was never developed with the “assault” intention in mind.  It was intended to be the next generation service rifle, superior to the M2 Carbine; and not to fill a niche role, as the AK-47 was.  Assaulting positions in a human-wave charge like in WWI, while firing something in full auto mode, simply isn’t in the U.S. infantry manual - anymore.  Technically, the M-16 meets all the criteria of an assault rifle; so, yes, an expert would say that the M-16 qualifies as an assault rifle, but I put an asterisk next to it because “sturm” nowhere enters this picture.  The non-intentional and technically accurate “automatic carbine” (maschinenkarabiner) is its proper classification, in my view.

After the AR-15, Eugene Stone came up with the AR-18 concept.  Where the AR-15 uses a direct impingement gas system, the AR-18 uses a short-stroke piston to cycle the action.  The AR-18 is much like the AR-15 in design purpose - an automatic carbine - but was intended to be manufactured in third world countries, required little sophisticated machining to build, and it got around the direct-gas impingement patent owned then by Colt.  Also chambering the .223 Remington, the AR-18 was made in a few thousands; it’s most famous descendent is the British SA-80.    The SA-80 is a bullpup arrangement, and meets all the criteria of an assault rifle; but like the M-16, it was developed as the next-generation, general-issue service rifle and not for a specific niche role.  The AR-180 is the semi-automatic version of the AR-18, and was sold on the civilian market.

The last Stoner design we’ll consider is the Stoner 63.  This interesting firearm could be configured in six different ways, including: as a rifle, a carbine, a Bren style automatic rifle, and a belt-fed light machine gun.  It was adopted by the U.S. Navy SEALs in 1967, and used in Vietnam primarily in the belt-fed LMG configuration.  With a 15” barrel, a 100 or 150 round belt in a box underneath the receiver, the Stoner could be rested on the ground using the box housing in place of a bipod, and a squad of four SEALs could put out the firepower of a platoon.  It was remarkably light and controllable, which is why it was so popular in Vietnam.  The Stoner, as configured by the SEALs, is a world-beater for clearing trenches, rooms, and jungle clearings as required, and for any other assault purpose; but only in its rifle and carbine configurations would it be classed as an “assault rifle.”  Technically, the preferred SEAL configuration is an LMG.

The Canadian FN C1 and C2 are not assault rifles.  They are long, and fire the full power 7.62 NATO cartridge.  The C1 was not intended to fire in full auto, though the sear can be slipped to make it do so.  It is uncontrollable in full automatic fire, as is the C2 when fired standing.  The C2 fills the same role as the BAR: a second-rate squad support weapon.

The purpose-built “assault rifles” covered here are the BAR and the AK-47.  All the automatic carbines are, by intention, improved, general issue, next-generation service rifles, whose principle improvement is the ability to fill the role of a submachine gun.  The expression “assault rifle” was originally coined to sell the new rifle concept to Adolph Hitler, the term “sturm” having a cachet among Nazis.  Hitler wasn’t seduced, and so the concept was continued in development, in spite of him, as a new submachine gun, the MP-44.  After the war, the sturmgewehr concept was translated and accepted as “assault rifle” which was a rifle (a carbine, really) with certain characteristics: select fire, intermediate powered cartridge, magazine fed, controllable in full auto, and capable of filling the role of a submachine gun.  The experts typically don’t consider the intended role of the weapon in the classification of a rifle being an “assault rifle” or not, and perhaps they ought to adopt the non- intentional, and technically accurate, expression “automatic carbine.”  Fully automatic rifles weren’t designed to “kill as many cabinet members as possible in the shortest time;” they were designed to win the fire-fight by putting more rounds downrange than the enemy was.

The public debate over what constitutes an assault rifle in style amounts to a discussion of undeclared, unexamined prejudices in disguise, with the opportunity to employ illicit substitutions in argument.  “Style” in this case, means that the things in question don’t actually possess the offending automatic characteristic: they only resemble the offending thing stylistically; and “assault” sounds so terrifying, menacing, and insensitive.

-30-                                                                                                          

 

 

 

Fanatical Stupidity is the real problem

Vincent J. Curtis

6 Nov 23

RE: Price of fossil fuels the real problem.  Op-ed by Catherine McKenna. The Hamilton Spectator 6 Nov 23.

You’d think that the editors who turned the Hamilton Spectator into the Dog’s Nest Dispatch would realize that surviving 2024 is of more immediate importance than adapting to some speculative 2100; but no.  They continue to run articles on stupid climate alarmism written by stupid people advocating stupid policies.

Catherine McKenna was once known as Canada’s climate Barbie, for her blonde good looks and empty head.  She didn’t run in the 2021 Federal election, though the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change, as a growing scandal of millions of dollars of unaccounted-for no-bid contracts issued by her department threatened to engulf her reputation. That scandal died with her candidacy.

McKenna proposes a smarter carbon tax.  Her proposal proves she knows nothing about economics, either, as the carbon tax is a tax on an inelastic demand.  People still have to heat their homes in winter and drive to work, and people must do these things practically regardless of the cost to do so.  People will find the money by economizing in other areas; but as we saw in the Maritime carbon tax holiday on home heating oil, even this has limits.

Worrying about climate change is stupid.  Measures that allegedly will prevent it are stupid.  The people advocating such things, by and large, are stupid, or have a financial interest in keeping up the hoax.

What’s the reason the Dispatch, er, the Spectator’s excuse?

-30-

Laughable scaremongering

Vincent J. Curtis

31 Oct 23

RE: “Earth likely to hit climate threshold by early 2029, new study suggests.” AP story by Seth Borenstein.  The Hamilton Spectator 31 Oct 23.

In the spirit of Halloween, the Spectator published another scaremongering piece on the weather by AP’s resident climate ghoul, Seth Borenstein.  There’s the usual end-of-the-world nonsense, now threatened to arrive in 2029.  The authors Borenstein reports on are named, “The Study.” (The names of “the 6 goombas” are listed below.)

But there are problems: nobody really knows what the global average temperature was in 1850; so, what “pre-industrial” actually is, is unknown.  The figure 1.5℃ above this unknown was just picked out of the air; there’s no scientific or historical basis for it.  The earth was much warmer than now in the past.  No one has said why this climate is the best possible when life flourished in warmer climates. (What’s the big diff between 13.8℃ and 15.3℃.  The IPCC thinks it’s 16℃ currently.  The fearmonging rise is lost in the error of estimation!)

What you won’t hear AP report is that it is a hard, scientific calculation that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in an increase of global temperature of 0.72℃; that’s all, less than a degree.  You won’t see observed that where there’s a trough, there will be pigs; and if you pay scientists good money to find a popular disaster ahead, they will report what you want.

An enormous, pre-planned publicity campaign was organized for the release of this paper.

Dr. John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Laurate in Physics, said it concisely, “there is no climate crisis, and climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”

-30-

Authors: Robin D. Lamboll, Zebedee R.J. Nicholls, Christopher J. Smith, Jama S. Kikstra, Edward Byers, and Joeri Rogeli.  (the 6 goombas) Perhaps their mothers have heard of them; perhaps not.  Their paper was evidently the subject of a massive pre-planned publicity campaign, and is all over the international, English language, MSM. This is a political campaign, not a serious scientific work.

The right to an education?

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Oct 23

RE: Canada must prioritize female education.  Op-ed by Mavalow christelle Kalhoule, who is some worthy that supports children’s education in Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Mali.

A person schooled in Aristotelian philosophy can often get a good laugh at progressives explaining the philosophy behind their beliefs.  The author expresses the belief that “[f]undamentally, education is a human right.”  If that were true, then that would excuse residential schools, for all the government of Canada was doing was enforcing the rights of aboriginal children to be educated in accordance with Western standards.

No, equal treatment under law is the right the author is searching for.  In most countries, schooling (something distinct from education) is an obligation that society enforces on its young.  In Ontario, that obligation ends at 16 years of age; and nobody has a right to attend university or community college.

The author writes about countries and societies that may not be able afford to educate all its young, and may prioritize the education of males over females for reasons of expediency.  That sucks, and that’s where Canada may be able to help.

But other societies limit the education of females to keep them down.  We know which societies those are, and their presence in West Africa is coming to dominate through the usual methods.  In those societies, Canada has to recognize the political implications of assisting with the education of females.  It’s not a simple matter of charity, as the author seems to imply.

Canada already prioritizes, even over-prioritizes, the education of women; helping other societies can be complicated.

-30-

A week of debunking

Getting tired of it

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Oct 23

RE: for Sustainability and Equity. Planet’s livability being threatened.  Op-ed by Kim Perrotta, Executive Director for the Canadian Health Association

People are getting tired of hearing nonsensical forecasts of “climate chaos” and like end-of-the-world threats, and of Canadians need to shape up or the end will come.  These warnings come and go, and nothing happens; and the prophets of doom never seem to pay a price for being wrong.

The hard science is that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in an increase in global temperature of 0.72℃.  This is barely detectable by the best instrumentation; and is less than the scaremongering 1.5 degree increase over a temperature never stated.  But a threat to livability is obviously wrong: higher CO2 and warmer temperatures are better for plant life, and plant life is the basis for all other life on earth, and promotes biodiversity, not lessens it.

Climate craziness is a kind of religious fanaticism for some (and therefore heretics are to be burnt at the stake) or a nihilistic political goal of discredited Marxism.

The belief that Canadians have to pull up their socks to save the planet is nonsense in the face of China, India, and Russia which laugh at this Western fetish over CO2.  If that wasn’t enough, this year’s forest fires put triple Canada’s annual output of CO2 into the atmosphere, so Canada has already lost the race to 2050.

People are tired cries of “wolf!” and of being hectored over things they can’t control.

-30-

 Good sense on wildfire management

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Oct 23

RE: Canada needs to think about it handles wildfires.  OP-ed by Murray Wilson.  The Hamilton Spectator 23 Oct 23.

Good observations and good sense on forest management by Murray Wilson.  He observes that the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by Canada’s wildfires this summer was triple the country’s annual output of CO2 from all other sources, making a mockery of pretensions of Canadians saving the planet by reducing our own output.

He also observes that our forests are aging and deteriorating, factors which increase the likelihood of wildfires, especially when combined with the drought conditions experienced across Canada this summer.  This means that climate change was not “the cause” of the forest fires, despite the self-interested claims of the scaremongers. It was old, dense forests, drought, and in most cases, arson, which were the culprits.

He pokes the sentimental environmentalists in the eye a third time with his solution: reducing the age and density of our forests through comprehensive management plans - like those that cover Algonquin Park!  Hard-headed realism is necessary to tackle the growing problem of forest fires in Canada.

A well thought-out piece that explodes a lot of myths, and probably a few heads as well.

-30-

 Denialism Hoax

Vincent J. Curtis

22 Oct 23

RE: Research aims to debunk ‘mass grave hoax’ theory. Op-ed by Sean Carlton and Reid Gerbrandt.  Carlton is an assistant professor of history and aboriginal studies at the University of Manitoba; Gerbrandt is a Masters student of sociology and criminology at the University of Manitoba.  The Hamilton Spectator 21 Oct 23.

Our two ‘mass grave hoax’ debunkers describe themselves as ‘settler researchers.’  Why don’t they make honest men of themselves and go back to where they came from if being a ‘settler’ is bad, as they evidently believe?

They are also clever in their insults.  From the very beginning of the discovery of mass burials near residential schools the presentation has always been very careful to observe that these apparent burials were, in fact, radar anomalies regularly arranged as a graveyard would be.  The emotional impact the media obtained was that these were a large number of burials, mass or otherwise.  No doubt was allowed to be entertained.

It’s the international media that’s been observing that, so-far and years on, no bodies at all have been excavated, and that the radar anomalies have so far proven negative for burials.  The Canadian media have been quite silent on these facts, which spawns conspiracy theories.

It’s not denialism of a ‘mass grave hoax’ at all; but the hoax so-far lies in that no burials at all have been found, despite previous claims; and Canada has been pulled through an emotional knot-hole over this allegedly established cruelty done to aboriginal children.  It’s the lack of reporting by Canadian media that’s given rise to hoax theories; and it’s international media that doing all the reporting.

-30-

 The Hard Science of it

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Oct 23

RE: “We must get our priorities on climate change straight.” Op-ed by Wayne Poole.  The Hamilton Spectator 20 Oct 23.

Speaking of the madness of crowds, we are treated to another of Poole’s laments on climate, and how we just aren’t doing enough!

The hard science of it is that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, from 400 to 800 ppm, will result in an increase of 0.72℃ in global temperature.  This is hardly detectable, and nothing to worry about, or spend trillions trying vainly to prevent.

Professor Emeritus of Physics William Happer in a recent presentation attempted to account for this madness over climate in the face of the real science of it.  One of his reasons was stupidity, and he quoted Dietrich Bonhoeffer on that subject as follows:

“Against stupidity we have no defence.  Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use.  Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved – indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them; and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions.  So the fool, distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied.  In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive.  For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one.”

Reading Poole’s protest brought this to mind.

-30-

 Debby Downer

Vincent J. Curtis

17 Oct 23

RE: “Lack of climate action frustrating.”  Op-ed by Dave Carson.  The Hamilton Spectator 17 Oct 23.

 

Dave Carson was certainly being a Debby Downer over his expression of frustration over a lack of climate action in Canada.  I have some good news and some bad news for him.

The good news is that serious scientists who’ve studied climate since the early 1980s maintain that the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere, from 400 to 800 ppm, will result at best of increase of 0.71℃ in global temperature.  This is nothing to worry about, and the extra CO2 will only benefit plant life.

The bad news is that his belief that Canada can, by her own heroic efforts, halt CO2 induced “climate change” is arrant nonsense; and continued action in this belief by central Canadians could cost them their country.  Alberta is not going to be put out of business by misguided do-gooders, no matter how sincerely they believe they are on the side of the angels.

Alberta will not remain in Confederation if central Canadians attempt to suppress Alberta’s oil & gas sector, agriculture sector, or cattle ranching sector, or try to force this province to rely on Chinese wind and solar for electric power.

-30-

How Will Happer computes temperature increase

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Oct 23

On the Tom Nelson podcast #158, guest Professor Will Happer explained (between 21:20 and 42:00) how he determines that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ will produce only a 0.71℃ increase in global temperature.  I will try to present below concisely how he does it.

Dr. Happer, with co-author Dr. W. van Wijngaarden, released what I call the “Will & Bill” paper[1] in which they report their solutions to the “equation of transfer” to produce the Schwarzschild curve of the earth’s infra-red emission spectra as seen from space.  The equation of transfer was originally developed by astrophysicists to determine the radiation from the center of stars, and the solution of it for all relevant frequencies produces the Schwarzschild curve.  The Will & Bill computations reproduce with uncanny accuracy the actual IR spectrum of the earth observed from satellites, and therefore their solutions to the equation of transfer to produce the earth’s Schwarzschild curve can be deemed reliable.

The earth’s surface is at a average temperature of 288K (15℃), which means that if the earth were a perfect blackbody radiator, the radiation distribution function would follow the Planck curve, with the area under the curve being 394 Wm^-2.  The Planck curve is to the Schwarzschild curve as the ideal is to the actual.  Because of the absorption of some of this infra-red radiation in the atmosphere, notably by water vapor, ozone, and CO₂, only 277 Wm^-2 actually reaches space.  The area under the actual (Schwarzschild) curve Will & Bill computed to be 277 Wm^-2.  It is here that Will Happer introduces the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:

            F = ƐσT⁴;

where F will stand as the forcing power in Wm^-2, Ɛ is the emissivity, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67 x 10^-8 Wm^-2 K^-4), and T is absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin.

Ɛ is the emissivity of the earth conceived as a blackbody radiator, and Happer computes it and ΔƐ as follows:

            Ɛ = (277/394) = 0.70

If the CO₂ content of the atmosphere were doubled from 400 to 800 ppm, then the area under the resulting Schwarzschild curve is reduced from 277 to 274 Wm^-2; hence, ΔƐ/Ɛ is computed to be:

            ΔƐ/Ɛ = [(274-277)/394](394/277) = -3/277 = -0.01

To maintain equilibrium, the heat radiated to space by the earth must equal the incoming radiation from the sun.  Hence, the F in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation above could stand for either the incoming solar flux, or the flux radiated from the earth back into space, as they must be the same value.  Since F of the sun is certainly constant for our purposes, Happer makes a first-order differentiation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as follows:

            ΔF_s = 0 = ΔƐσT⁴ + 4ƐσT³ΔT;

Rearranging:

            ΔT = - (ΔƐ/4Ɛ)T;

Substituting the values:

            ΔT = (0.01/4) (288) = 0.72K = 0.72℃

The result of reducing the flux to space by 3 Wm^-2 is to increase temperature by 0.72℃ to compensate.

Given the accuracy and robustness of the Will & Bill computations, this is a figure that can be relied on, for the only way the earth can shed heat is by radiation to space and that process is subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

On a personal note, the equation of transfer wasn’t pulled out of a hat for the purpose of climate science; it was developed much earlier and for completely different purposes.  That fact, combined with the uncanny results in the Will & Bill paper, convinces me of the correctness of Happer’s forecast.

-30-

 

---

[1] W.A. van Wijngaarden, W. Happer, “”Dependence of the Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” June 8, 2020.

There is no Greenhouse Effect, Part 3

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Oct 23

Chemists are steeped in the Beer-Lambert Law (some would say stewed!) because it is the basis for analytical spectroscopy, of which there is a lot these days.  My first job out of university was as an analytical chemist for a large steelmaker, and one of my tasks was to measure the Zn content of wastewater.  For this we used a Varian AA6 atomic absorption spectrophotometer.  The calibration range was from 0 to 7 ppm Zn; 8 ppm deviated noticeably to the right of the straight absorption line from 0 to 7; and by 9 ppm the absorption line from 8 was so flat the instrument could not reliably detect differences in concentration; they were lost in the noise.

When I saw the presentation of the Will & Bill paper[1] at the Heartland 2021 conference, and saw that there was no change in the CO2 absorption peak from about 50 and certainly from 100 ppm to 800, I recognized the complete flattening of the absorption curve.  Quantitatively measurable absorption much beyond 100 ppm is going to be unreliable and lost in signal noise.  In my view, the IR absorption by CO2 is maxxed out by 100 ppm; and line broadening absorption is of no significance.  Whatever there might be is, for practical purposes, lost in noise, and isn’t that just what we’re seeing when actually trying to measure global temperatures and emission spectra from space?

Getting back to Beer-Lambert, my calculation in Part 1 of this series showed that 99.4% of radiation at 667 cm^-1 is absorbed within 10 m of the ground, and that all of this is thermalized (within the limits of Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution).  Adding more CO₂ just shortens the distance in which complete absorption occurs.

Other examples of the mis-education of chemists are the beliefs that there has to be a difference in temperature for heat to flow, and that heat flows from the higher to the lower temperature: Fourier’s Law, or some such.  On this basis, the illustration in the IPCC heat balance[2] of 398 W/m² flowing into the atmosphere means the warm ground is heating the cool air above it; but that 342 W/m² flowing from the air into the ground would mean the ground was colder than the air, contradicting the assumption of the 398.  Now, I’ll accept that net 56 is what the ground puts into the air, but then what to make of the rest?  You get 80+82+21+56 = 239 put into the troposphere from all sources, which is precisely what is radiated to space; and 82+21+56 = 159, the GHE number as determined by Howard Hayden, Ph.D.; and 159 + 0.7 = 160, the amount of heat absorbed by the ground from the sun’s rays. The figures are suggestive, and the role of CO₂, if any, is obvious nowhere. (All IR absorption is found in the 80 and the 56.)

A net heat flow of 56 from the ground into the atmosphere would mean that if the atmosphere is at 288K, then the ground must be 299K.

Pardon me if I continue to think out loud.

The IPCC model is a steady-state, meaning the heat equation boils down to the Laplace equation.

If adding CO₂ to the lower atmosphere results in a higher temperature, then that would seem to violate the law of conservation of energy: where is this extra energy to heat the lower atmosphere going to come from?  Is the ground going to start pumping more than 56 into the lower atmosphere, and if so, where is that energy going to come from within the model?  The ground receives 160 from the sun’s rays, and puts it all back into the troposphere 82+21+56 = 159 (within model error of 0.7.) It’s all accounted for, already.

If you conceived the troposphere as an insulator, Fourier’s Law in 1-D would have the near ground level at 288K and 230K (159 W/m2 radiative power) at the other side of the insulating wall, that being the top of the troposphere.

What you put in at one end, you have to take out at the other in a steady state, and 398 is too much; but, if you take the lower troposphere as that needing to lose heat, then there’s your 239: (82+80+21+56), with the ground effectively at 299K, not 288K; the satellites couldn’t tell the difference.  And you still don’t have to make theories about greenhouse effects.  What greenhouse effect there is, is that absorption of IR and thermalization within the first 10 m of the ground, an effect already maxxed out; the effects of line broadening are lost in noise.  Any more energy put into the lower troposphere by the ground would appear to violate the law of conservation of energy. (There’s also IR absorption and thermalization within the inbound 80.)

Does CO₂ content play a role in the “insulation” constant of the troposphere?  Well, no.  Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution effects matter in the upper atmosphere, not in the lower, where the excited state would be thermally quenched before radiation, and the thermal diffusivity of CO₂ isn’t that different from other atmospheric gases, never mind the insignificant concentration.

What if other IR active molecules were added to the atmosphere, such as CFCs?  Assuming their only effect is IR absorption and subsequent thermalization, this heat appearance would be deducted from the atmospheric window incorporated into the 239.  If it meant that, effectively, more heat is being put into in the lower atmosphere by the ground, then, as we have seen, that appears to violate conservation of energy; besides, that 239 total would have to be made up elsewhere, by processes neglected in the model.

A higher temperature; and higher difference in temperature between the lower and upper troposphere would mean an off-setting faster rate of heat transport to the upper atmosphere, an example of Le Chatelier’s Principle. (whom the chemists claim as one of their own.)

If a climate model claims that the temperature in the lower troposphere is going to rise by so many degrees by 2100, you have to ask how?  It can’t be just more CO₂, or CO₂ and water vapor and more IR absorption and thermalization.  If the sun heats the atmosphere directly by more than 80, then there’s that much less than 160 striking the ground; and if the ground is cooler and the atmosphere warmer, then the heat transfer from the ground to the air is less than 56.  Putting more water vapor into the air means less energy for sensitive heat, and/or cools the ground (taking away from the 56).  Line broadening, I claim, is of no significance and lost in noise (aside from requiring the conservation of energy be violated somewhere).  And if you heat the lower troposphere somehow, that will warm the upper troposphere by convection eventually, raising the rate at which Maxwell-Boltzmann effects convert that heat into IR radiation to space, another example of Le Chatelier’s Principle.

It seems that all the models require more heating by closing the atmospheric window, (by thermalization of IR not mentioned in the IPCC budget) in violation of conservation of energy.  Recall the ground is receiving 160 from the sun, and putting into the troposphere 82+21+56+0.7 = 160, accounting for all the surface receives, and must put back.

The upshot is that theories of CO₂ induced greenhouse effects are unnecessary, and, frankly, invisible, in the IPCC heat flow diagram, once you get rid of the unphysical 342 going from a cooler air into the warmer ground.  They would seem in violation of the conservation of energy also.  The lower troposphere has 239 from all sources to get rid of, and that’s what leaves to space; a computed GHE forcing number of 159 appears at the top of the troposphere as well as being that which strikes the ground, and a near ground level temperature of 288 is sustainable if the ground is effectively 299K. Where IR absorption plays a role in the model is in the sun heating the air directly i.e. the 80, and in the 56, which is completely absorbed within a few meters of the ground emitting it.  (I can already hear Willie Soon saying “I told you so!)

If you want to heat the earth, you have to make the albedo smaller.

-30-

Let me acknowledge that the inspiration for this article came from an on-line back-and-forth with Howard Hayden, Ph.D.  I am responsible for all the content of the piece.  Dr. Hayden also provided me with the IPCC AR6 energy budget, which I will attach to the tweet announcing publication of this piece on my blog.

For reference, the IPCC AR6 energy flow goes more or less as follows:

All values are are in Wm^-2

340 incoming from the sun

100 reflect back into space (albedo)

80 absorbed by the atmosphere incoming

160 absorbed by the surface of the earth

82 used by the earth’s surface to evaporate water

21 sensible heat from the earth’s surface

56 net radiated from earth’s surface (the difference between 398 up and 342 down)

239 thermal outgoing to space, of which an indeterminate amount is through a thermal window

 

0.7 imbalance

---

[1] W.A. van Wijngaarden, W. Happer “Dependence of the Earth’s Thermal Radiation on the Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases.” June 8, 2020.

[2] IPCC AR6 Radiation Budget.