Send your new comment to Montana PSC by July 1

4 Comments

1. I left a comment, essentially what is stated here:
   https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711

   Took nearly all 8000 characters, but I fit it in. LOL

   Reply

2. Ed,

   I show my comments to the PSC below, for what they are worth. They are self-explanatory. If I can help in any way, let me know, but as I state in my comments to the PSC, I am fairly well home-bound as my invalid wife’s primary care provider. I could submit an affidavit with pertinent documents attached, but only after vetting the documents with you or others to ensure I am not needlessly duplicating information. My submission to the PSC follows.

   I am a 79-year-old retired geologist, a native of Montana and a resident from 1945 to 2019 when I moved to Idaho where I could get adequate medical treatment for my wife that is not available in Montana. I have developed a life in Idaho out of necessity, but my heart is still in Montana. I was the Chief Geologist for Morrison-Maierle, Inc., based out of Helena from 1974 through 2019, and worked on a number of climate-change related projects during my career, including provision of expert witness testimony about climate-change related matters in Arizona for the Indian Claims Court in Washington, D.C. and provision of a report to the Gallatin National Forest in the 1970s regarding the climate change history of the forest area over the past 12,000 years.

   Based on my personal review of the climate-change science over the past 40 years, I urge the PSC to accept this Petition and solicit the testimony of experts who were not included in the testimony provided during Held v Montana. Having kept abreast of the developments in the climate-change science since at least 1984, when the government began to present conclusions that were clearly incorrect as shown by my earlier work which I testified about in the Claims Court, I have concluded that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have a negligible influence on atmospheric temperature changes and trends and; therefore, there are no adverse climate impacts of GHG emissions. Hence, carbon emissions have no “social costs”, contrary to the assertions of climate-change activists who base their conclusions on faulty and indefensible information. I am greatly frustrated that a number of scientists support the latter position, that carbon emissions cause adverse effects when more than 1,600 highly respected climate researchers findings of no GHG effects are suppressed in the media and ignored by the Court in Held v Montana. The notion that a “consensus” of scientists is a deciding factor is utter nonsense to any scientist who follows the research. Science is not done by consensus. Scientists do not vote on which principles of physics and earth sciences are important and which ones may be disregarded in coming to a conclusion about any scientific data. In the case of GHG causing climate change, it is embarrassingly obvious that the “consensus” is obtained only by cherry-picking the data and ignoring any inconvenient data and/or published research that does not support the activists’ conclusions. Unfortunately, the testimony in Held v Montana is based on the latter approach, not on sound science that is well-known and supported by defensible data and analyses that take into account factors that are ignored in Held v Montana. Thus, the truth of the science is obscured by the approach presented by the so-called “consensus” and, in my opinion, the Court in Held v Montana issued a finding based on corrupted science.

   It is my opinion as a geologist familiar with the many massive changes in the earth’s climate, manifested as multiple ice ages separated by periods of relatively warm inter-glacial periods such as the one currently in effect, that well-known factors that influence the fluctuations in solar radiation heating our atmosphere drive the long-term trends in climate change recorded in the geologic record well before the extremely short period of increased carbon emissions associated with the industrial revolution.

   Furthermore, examination of the long-term ice core records from Greenland and Antarctica reveals many instances where the increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide gas trapped in the bubbles of atmospheric gas in the ice core follow increases in atmospheric temperature revealed by other isotopes in the trapped atmospheric gas. The fact that carbon dioxide concentrations do not increase for decades to even centuries after atmospheric temperature increases clearly shows that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere do not drive the temperature change, but rather, are the result of increased atmospheric temperature warming the oceans which then in turn release a portion of dissolved carbon dioxide gas from the water and into the atmosphere.

   The latter relationship is exactly what one should expect; however, the “consensus” theory invokes a feedback mechanism (that we do not see in nature) in the global climate model calculations that allow the models to “prove” that changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the driving force. In nature, we observe by many diverse means of measurements, that the atmospheric temperature trends are driven by factors that cause changes in the solar radiation heating the atmosphere. The latter changes in turn warm or cool the oceans which then either release or absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, respectively. This is much like the effect of heating up a bottle of Coca Cola with a resultant release of carbon dioxide from the fluid in the bottle and likewise, a return of the carbon dioxide into solution in the fluid when the bottle is cooled.

   This is a far more serious situation than the dust bowl days of the early 20th century where the question was if the dust bowl was caused by farming practices or was simply the result of climate effects. Clearly, a different national policy was needed if farming practices had caused the dust bowl than a national policy calculated to deal with the inevitable effects of a climate change over which our governing institutions had no control.

   The man-made climate-change theory is a more serious situation because the climatic data, when objectively analyzed, do not reveal a problem that needs a solution. We know from the geologic record that the climate is always in a state of flux and that for all but the most de minimis part of the geologic record following the industrial revolution, anthropogenic activities did not exist to exert any significant influence on carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, yet climate trends of warming and cooling occurred to the extent of causing ice ages separated by periods of relatively warm atmospheric conditions. The latter fluctuations in climate are explained by factors that have been known since at least the beginning of the 20th century, so there is no need for a man-made climate change explanation that invokes (incorrectly) atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations as a driving mechanism. Such an explanation can apply only to less than 150 years out of hundreds of thousands of years of fluctuation in climate trends that could not possibly be driven by man or his activities.

   Accordingly, I urge the PSC to accept the Petition and to seek additional information from informed experts. You will be doing a service to Montana residents and setting a course for other States nation-wide to follow regarding policies about supplying adequate energy to our State and our Nation.

   I am my wife’s full-time care provider and am therefore bound closely to home with limited respite care. I would provide testimony, if I could work out an acceptable means of taking care of my invalid wife. However, others are far more knowledgeable than me about climate change and can provide excellent expert testimony. With a little work, I could provide a limited list of references, perhaps vetted by other experts to avoid duplication, that supports and edifies the opinions I offer in these comments.

   It is a matter of concern to me that our country is poised on the brink of making very bad decisions about use of our natural resources and our financial capabilities based on bad science. The Montana PSC currently has an opportunity to set climate science precedent for all of the USA, by bringing to the public decision-making process good defensible climate science conclusions that show GHG have no adverse effect on our climate.

   Reply

3. Ed, following up on my submission to the Montana PSC, I wonder if it is worth presenting in testimony, the history of environmental activists, starting at least in the 1970s, using environmental issues to assert control over major policy decisions in this country. It does not take much research to learn that such activity was proposed by Marxist activists as a means of gaining control of our government and, in typical Marxist authoritarian ways, controlling virtually every aspect of our life from where we can live, what we can eat and how much we can be allowed to travel as well as what types of modern appliances we can be allowed to use, such as air conditioning. These ideas, articulated at least as early as 1970, are now trotted out by the Biden administration with the clear intent of regulating every aspect of our American life, down to how we can scratch our *ss. The notion of man-made climate change is the main weapon in their armory for implementing these ideas and converting us into another sorry socialist country and the current administration is well into controlling the stoves we use, our refrigerators, and other appliances and, more importantly, doing away with private ownership of property and converting us all back to serfdom, except for the elite who will tell us how to live.

   Held v Montana is just on step along the way to implementing Marxism on all of us. Is there a need for testimony about this or, as I expect, would it simply become a divisive distraction and paint us all as crack pots and conspiracy theorists not worthy of an audience? Just a thought. Every time I get involved in this, I cannot help but think back to the roots of the environmental movement which was started by Marxists whose clearly stated goal was to convert the United States to a socialist country and do away with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. With the UN driving the climate change modeling and research, that goal has simply become more entrenched as witnessed by the nature of the various treaties the UN wants this country to approve and participate in, all of which are greatly against our best national interests.

   Best regards,
   Mike K

   Reply

4. Regarding my post above, I must confess I have not been keeping up with your website. After posting the last message, I took some time to read part of your posts and found you are way ahead of me and well into exposing the efforts to change this country and our Constitutional freedoms as individuals. I apologize for not updating myself on your writings before posting the simplistic post above.

   Mike Kaczmarek

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.