Perry, Romney, and Climate Change Consensus in the Presidential Race

It’s the nature of media (and, perhaps, society in general) that it often works to build controversy where none exists. Few places is that more evident than political races. When Texas Governor Rick Perry official entered the presidential race last week, he made comments about climate change and the adequacy of the science. Candidate Mitt Romney then contrasted Perry’s take with his own view that human beings contribute to global warming.

Though the remarks have generated a good deal of media coverage, there is no inherent contradiction between these two views.

Colorado State University professor Roger Pielke Sr. has extensively documented how land use affects climate. Urban sprawl has led to the creation of heat islands which are several degrees warmer than surrounding rural areas. Development in Florida has shifted in rain patterns. And deforestation has contributed to the famous melting of Himalaya glaciers.

However, acknowledging humans’ influence on temperature increases over the past century is a far cry from endorsing the notion that government must impose onerous regulation on greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent catastrophic climate changes later this century. As Pielke testified before Congress earlier this year, “a focus on just carbon dioxide and a few other greenhouse gases as the dominant human influence on climate is too narrow, and misses other important human influences.”

Science is about developing theories and then continually challenging those theories through observation and accumulation of real world data. Yet, a myopic focus on a single variable (fossil energy use, in this case) excludes a wide range of other valid perspectives and ignores critical factors and. As a result, the resulting conclusions are unbalanced and make faulty foundations for policy recommendations.

It’s hardly surprising then that temperatures over the past 30 years have increased only a fraction of what many computer models predicted.

The reasons are that the models assume that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will lead to increases in atmospheric water vapor—the most prevalent greenhouse gas—and that will enhance the gas’ warming affect. That’s fine in theory but has yet to be demonstrated in practice. Atmospheric water vapor has not increased. More importantly, scientists like University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer and MIT’s Richard Lindzen have shown that other elements in our complex climate system can be compensating.

A recent report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation and written by Princeton professor William Happer—one of nation’s pre-eminent physicists—explains how and why the public has been misled about the global warming threat. He begins by quoting the forward written by Charles Mackay for the book “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”:

The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes.

Professor Happer then makes the argument: “The contemporary ‘climate crusade’ has much in common with the medieval crusades Mackay describes, with true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types, and even children’s crusades.”

He stresses the importance of keeping land, air and water free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, pathogens and explains why CO2 should not be considered a pollutant:

Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 270 parts per million (ppm). At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm … About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and, other things being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about one degree Celsius warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere —about 2 ppm per year— it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling … Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, etc. are greatly exaggerated.

The bottom line is that humans do influence climate, but the issue is hardly as black and white as many special interest groups claim and assertions about ‘scientific consensus’ are greatly overblown. While Governor Perry may have used political hyperbole in stating his position, he is right in being skeptical about claims of a climate disaster.


  1. mememine69

    Justice Time for the Fear Mongers:
    NOBODY is going vote YES to taxing the air to make the weather colder and governments around the globe are poised to be defeated by demanding that citizens sacrifice and pay for lowering the seas. Now that climate change mitigation is dead, it’s time for the courts to deal with the lazy teachers, pandering politicians, exploiting and exaggerating scientists, mindless news editors and criminal journalists for their 25 years of needless panic that condemned billions of our children to a death by CO2 (catastrophic climate change crisis). You selfish and childish fear mongers didn’t love the planet, you hated humanity and if there were real consequences for inciting this “climate riot”, you would all be in jail. We can make this a reality people. Call the courthouse now:
    U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    By Phone: Department of Justice Main Switchboard -202-514-2000
    Office of the Attorney General Public Comment Line -202-353-1555
    Climate Blame was a sick and tragic exaggeration that made fools out of all of us.

  2. mememine69

    Republican or not, we all know the CO2 science of unstoppable warming was a tragic exaggeration and 25 years of needless panic has made fear mongering neocons out of all of us. The proof is that thousands of scientists that strongly outnumbered the protesters refused to march in the streets with us and are not acting like it’s the danger they said it was even after Obama never even mentioned the “crisis” in his State of the Union Address. We and the thousands of scientists should have all been acting like this was the comet hit of an emergency that we all cried it was. Fear is always unsustainable.
    We have condemned billions of children to a catastrophic CO2 demise with such childish glee and selfish flippancy that I can no longer look my children in the eyes and tell them to SAVE THE PLANET from evil Human CO2 or they will experience the worst disaster imaginable; climate crisis.
    I am a former believer and this planet lover will continue stewardship of the planet but without the CO2 mistake. Face it; nobody was going to vote YES for taxing the air to make the weather colder.

  3. Manfred Zysk, M.E.

    MANFRED ZYSK, M.E. – August 25, 2011- Publication is authorized
    WEBSITE:, E-Mail:
    Source: The Oregonian Newspaper and

    The table below for 2011 shows Fairbanks, Alaska being as warm or warmer than Los Angeles during 33 days, and Fairbanks being as warm or warmer than San Francisco during 80 days from May 14 to August 25, 2011, according to the Oregonian Newspaper and The direct distance from Los Angeles, California to Fairbanks, Alaska is approximately 3,000 miles north. The months of June, July and August are normally the warmest months for Fairbanks, Alaska.

    5/14/2011 – Fairbanks 65 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 64 F. San Francisco 58 F. Los Angeles 67 F.
    5/15/2011 – Fairbanks 63 F. Seattle 51 F. Portland 57 F. San Francisco 60 F. Los Angeles 66 F.
    5/16/2011 – Fairbanks 66 F. Seattle 54 F. Portland 56 F. San Francisco 61 F. Los Angeles 65 F.
    5/17/2011 – Fairbanks 73 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 62 F. San Francisco 57 F. Los Angeles 66 F.
    5/18/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 66 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 67 F.
    5/19/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 74 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    5/20/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 75 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    5/21/2011 – Fairbanks 76 F. Seattle 63 F. Portland 64 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 73 F.
    5/22/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 60 F. Portland 62 F. San Francisco 61 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    5/23/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 61 F. Portland 63 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 68 F.
    5/24/2011 – Fairbanks 79 F. Seattle 68 F. Portland 69 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 71 F.
    5/25/2011 – Fairbanks 76 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 59 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 75 F.
    5/26/2011 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 57 F. Portland 58 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 73 F.
    5/27/2011 – Fairbanks 85 F. Seattle 59 F. Portland 58 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 75 F.
    5/28/2011 – Fairbanks 86 F. Seattle 58 F. Portland 60 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 73 F.
    5/29/2011 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 64 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 73 F.
    5/30/2011 – Fairbanks 78 F. Seattle 65 F. Portland 63 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 76 F.
    5/31/2011 – Fairbanks 81 F. Seattle 63 F. Portland 60 F. San Francisco 60 F. Los Angeles 72 F.

    6/01/2011 – Fairbanks 75 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 62 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 69 F.
    6/02/2011 – Fairbanks 65 F. Seattle 60 F. Portland 60 F. San Francisco 61 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    6/03/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 69 F. Portland 73 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    6/04/2011 – Fairbanks 66 F. Seattle 79 F. Portland 83 F. San Francisco 61 F. Los Angeles 74 F.
    6/05/2011 – Fairbanks 65 F. Seattle 81 F. Portland 80 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 74 F.
    6/06/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 71 F. San Francisco 60 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    6/07/2011 – Fairbanks 76 F. Seattle 61 F. Portland 61 F. San Francisco 61 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    6/08/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 67 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    6/09/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 74 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    6/10/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 68 F. Portland 67 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    6/11/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 65 F. Portland 64 F. San Francisco 61 F. Los Angeles 68 F.
    6/12/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 73 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    6/13/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 67 F. Portland 66 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 74 F.
    6/14/2011 – Fairbanks 71 F. Seattle 64 F. Portland 71 F. San Francisco 70 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    6/15/2011 – Fairbanks 65 F. Seattle 63 F. Portland 65 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    6/16/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 68 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    6/17/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 72 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 68 F.
    6/18/2011 – Fairbanks 76 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 63 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    6/19/2011 – Fairbanks 78 F. Seattle 67 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 70 F. Los Angeles 68 F.
    6/20/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 74 F. Los Angeles 74 F.
    6/21/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 78 F. Portland 84 F. San Francisco 84 F. Los Angeles 81 F.
    6/22/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 74 F. Portland 75 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    6/23/2011 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 64 F. Portland 66 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    6/24/2011 – Fairbanks 77 F. Seattle 64 F. Portland 67 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 75 F.
    6/25/2011 – Fairbanks 82 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 70 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 68 F.
    6/26/2011 – Fairbanks 79 F. Seattle 77 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    6/27/2011 – Fairbanks 77 F. Seattle 78 F. Portland 78 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    6/28/2011 – Fairbanks 71 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 72 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    6/29/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 75 F.
    6/30/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 63 F. Portland 69 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 80 F.

    7/01/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 73 F. Portland 78 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 84 F.
    7/02/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 76 F. Portland 81 F. San Francisco 76 F. Los Angeles 86 F.
    7/03/2011 – Fairbanks 71 F. Seattle 68 F. Portland 72 F. San Francisco 80 F. Los Angeles 89 F.
    7/04/2011 – Fairbanks 71 F. Seattle 76 F. Portland 81 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 89 F.
    7/05/2011 – Fairbanks 73 F. Seattle 80 F. Portland 85 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 88 F.
    7/06/2011 – Fairbanks 78 F. Seattle 81 F. Portland 86 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 88 F.
    7/07/2011 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 73 F. San Francisco 66 F. Los Angeles 84 F.
    7/08/2011 – Fairbanks 79 F. Seattle 65 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 81 F.
    7/09/2011 – Fairbanks 79 F. Seattle 73 F. Portland 77 F. San Francisco 62 F. Los Angeles 76 F.
    7/10/2011 – Fairbanks 77 F. Seattle 75 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    7/11/2011 – Fairbanks 77 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 76 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    7/12/2011 – Fairbanks 75 F. Seattle 69 F. Portland 70 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 75 F.
    7/13/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 75 F.
    7/14/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 64 F. Portland 71 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 73 F.
    7/15/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 76 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 74 F.
    7/16/2011 – Fairbanks 64 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 77 F.
    7/17/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 71 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 76 F.
    7/18/2011 – Fairbanks 64 F. Seattle 78 F. Portland 75 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 81 F.
    7/19/2011 – Fairbanks 67 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 73 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 86 F.
    7/20/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 68 F. Portland 71 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 83 F.
    7/21/2011 – Fairbanks 75 F. Seattle 67 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    7/22/2011 – Fairbanks 81 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 76 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    7/23/2011 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 79 F. Portland 85 F. San Francisco 66 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    7/24/2011 – Fairbanks 73 F. Seattle 82 F. Portland 85 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 83 F.
    7/25/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 78 F. Portland 75 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 81 F.
    7/26/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 67 F. Portland 73 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 83 F.
    7/27/2011 – Fairbanks 74 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 76 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    7/28/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 74 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    7/29/2011 – Fairbanks 73 F. Seattle 74 F. Portland 82 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    7/30/2011 – Fairbanks 65 F. Seattle 76 F. Portland 85 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    7/31/2011 – Fairbanks 64 F. Seattle 74 F. Portland 78 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 85 F.

    8/01/2011 – Fairbanks 71 F. Seattle 76 F. Portland 83 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 85 F.
    8/02/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 80 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 86 F.
    8/03/2011 – Fairbanks 72 F. Seattle 78 F. Portland 82 F. San Francisco 74 F. Los Angeles 85 F.
    8/04/2011 – Fairbanks 76 F. Seattle 77 F. Portland 78 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 83 F.
    8/05/2011 – Fairbanks 61 F. Seattle 73 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    8/06/2011 – Fairbanks 67 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 73 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    8/07/2011 – Fairbanks 56 F. Seattle 77 F. Portland 81 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    8/08/2011 – Fairbanks 64 F. Seattle 72 F. Portland 78 F. San Francisco 66 F. Los Angeles 85 F.
    8/09/2011 – Fairbanks 57 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 74 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 80 F.
    8/10/2011 – Fairbanks 64 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 70 F. San Francisco 72 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    8/11/2011 – Fairbanks 66 F. Seattle 73 F. Portland 79 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 76 F.
    8/12/2011 – Fairbanks 70 F. Seattle 76 F. Portland 81 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    8/13/2011 – Fairbanks 64 F. Seattle 70 F. Portland 77 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    8/14/2011 – Fairbanks 60 F. Seattle 69 F. Portland 72 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    8/15/2011 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 71 F. Portland 74 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 86 F.
    8/16/2011 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 76 F. Portland 81 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    8/17/2011 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 75 F. Portland 81 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 85 F.
    8/18/2011 – Fairbanks 67 F. Seattle 74 F. Portland 80 F. San Francisco 66 F. Los Angeles 88 F.
    8/19/2011 – Fairbanks 71 F. Seattle 78 F. Portland 82 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 82 F.
    8/20/2011 – Fairbanks 60 F. Seattle 82 F. Portland 92 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 76 F.
    8/21/2011 – Fairbanks 58 F. Seattle 80 F. Portland 87 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    8/22/2011 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 73 F. Portland 80 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    8/23/2011 – Fairbanks 69 F. Seattle 74 F. Portland 82 F. San Francisco 71 F. Los Angeles 83 F.
    8/24/2011 – Fairbanks 67 F. Seattle 81 F. Portland 87 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 86 F.
    8/25/2011 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 83 F. Portland 87 F. San Francisco 66 F. Los Angeles 85 F.


    5/25/2010 – Fairbanks 77 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 61 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    5/26/2010 – Fairbanks 79 F. Seattle 57 F. Portland 60 F. San Francisco 63 F. Los Angeles 70 F.
    5/27/2010 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 65 F. San Francisco 59 F. Los Angeles 69 F.
    5/28/2010 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 57 F. Portland 59 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 72 F.
    5/29/2010 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 60 F. Portland 66 F. San Francisco 67 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    5/30/2010 – Fairbanks 80 F. Seattle 63 F. Portland 65 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 85 F.
    5/31/2010 – Fairbanks 77 F. Seattle 60 F. Portland 66 F. San Francisco 65 F. Los Angeles 78 F.
    6/01/2010 – Fairbanks 73 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 65 F. San Francisco 64 F. Los Angeles 74 F.
    6/02/2010 – Fairbanks 75 F. Seattle 62 F. Portland 62 F. San Francisco 68 F. Los Angeles 76 F.
    6/03/2010 – Fairbanks 75 F. Seattle 66 F. Portland 68 F. San Francisco 69 F. Los Angeles 79 F.
    6/04/2010 – Fairbanks 68 F. Seattle 57 F. Portland 65 F. San Francisco 70 F. Los Angeles 83 F.

    Science has verified that Carbon Dioxide and Methane Gas are major contributors to global climate changes. The entire Arctic landmass contains 1.5 Trillion tons of frozen Permafrost Carbon and Methane, which is presently melting, and is releasing large amounts of methane gas which is 23 times stronger than carbon dioxide. It is estimated that 29-59% of permafrost will disappear by the year 2200. The effects of such large amounts of additional methane into the global atmosphere have not been estimated, and the effects of methane upon global climate changes and associated economic constraints have not been considered. Year-long warmer temperatures of the Arctic Region are generated by the release of moisture and CO2 emissions from warmer pacific ocean waters and the thawing of frozen methane hydrates on the ocean floor which contain over three (3) Trillion tons of methane hydrate gas deposits worldwide.

    The worldwide release of Methane has still not been factored into the global climate change research and estimates, and that in part is why the projections in climate changes are substantially underestimated. The constant heat of warmer air temperatures from the oceans containing more moisture, CO2 and methane are being forced into the Arctic region to melt ice and permafrost. Warmer ocean waters also melt more ice in the Arctic and Antarctic which in turn release more moisture into the atmosphere to cause greater global climate changes due to the shifting of ocean water volume into the Southern Hemisphere to cause greater temperature and climate changes into the Northern Hemisphere with shifting weather patterns.

    The present worldwide acceleration and expected trend of expanding carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel consumption and methane emissions is extremely dangerous for the future of this planet. Carbon Dioxide and Methane do not disintegrate within 70 years and presently large volumes continue to accelerate and accumulate in the atmosphere, and we are entering the point of no return toward a huge worldwide catastrophe. All major industrial countries and governments are only concerned to acquire more oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, but these diminishing energy sources combined show little promise for future energy sustainability to drive the global economy. Many countries, organizations and scientists now state that a new energy system is needed and that present fossil fuels need to be eliminated as soon as possible because of the carbon dioxide emissions causing global climate changes, cause huge economic damages and develop crop and food shortages in the process.

    The only viable solution to depleting fossil fuel energy resources is hydrogen energy produced from the oceans (11%) and to regenerate the hydrogen in a closed loop process. Hydrogen gas is an element that cannot be consumed or used up and will react with explosive force with oxygen and various chemical formulas to produce powerful chemical reactions. Basically, oil, gasoline, natural gas and coal contain primarily hydrogen and carbon which ignite and burn with oxygen and other chemical elements. The carbon content in oil, natural gas and coal with the oxygen burns off or is combusted, but the hydrogen gas content is indestructible and cannot be consumed, and therefore the hydrogen can be separated and regenerated for combustion in a closed loop process numerous times.

    BY: MANFRED ZYSK, M.E. – August 16, 2011

    Hydrogen Energy Values are 3.02 times more powerful compared to Gasoline per 1 kilogram (2.204 pounds), (compressed at 700 bar); Hydrogen Energy is 3.15 times more powerful compared to Diesel Fuel; Hydrogen Energy is 3.08 times more powerful compared to Natural Gas & Propane; Hydrogen Energy is 6.0 times more powerful compared to Coal; Hydrogen Energy is 8.41 times more powerful compared to Carbohydrates; Hydrogen Energy is 8.83 times more powerful compared to Wood. These energy values are only direct comparisons to fossil fuels, and do not show enhanced combustion processes with organic and inorganic formulas. The organic, inorganic, and combination of organic and inorganic hydrogen combustion formulas can be extremely powerful for many useful applications and for large power requirements. Hydrogen Energy is the ultimate source of global energy supply for many centuries and my hydrogen energy regeneration systems and processes are required. Barring unreasonable exploitation, Hydrogen Energy can become the most inexpensive and abundant future energy resource. Hydrogen is also the most abundant element in the entire universe.

    The Roads To Our Alternative Energy Future
    By Barath Raghavan – August 24, 2011
    As for transitioning faster (from fossil fuel), we can look to the Hirsch report, which argued that a 20 year energy crash program is about as fast as it can be done. So 20 years it is.
    Industrial Capacity
    First, how much would we need to build to provide 15 TW globally using mostly alternatives in 20 years?
    In total (the anticipated capabilities of new energy resources), yields about 4.2 TW of new capacity and adds to an existing 2 TW of fossil fuels, 1 TW of nuclear, and 0.5 of hydro, yielding 7.7 TW – about half of the target. That is, even assuming optimistic rates of production of alternative energy sources, we’d be about 50% short of our energy target in 20 years.
    Doing the analysis above reminded me that a wholesale transition to alternatives seems unlikely to deliver energy at current levels of consumption/production.
    >> Business-as-usual: we’ll just keep on going with fossil fuels until we can no longer do so; that is we’ll follow the oil depletion curve down and try to substitute with coal, tar sands, and other dirty fuels. We may not build new coal plants in the United States, but we probably won’t decommission them as fast as we should to deal with climate issues, and China, India, and other countries will continue using coal at breakneck rates. It will however cause us to overshoot 450 ppm of CO2, taking us to perhaps 500 or 550 ppm, which is probably past the point of no return in terms of warming – natural feedbacks are likely to take over. (I think we probably are unlikely to go much further than that, since we’ll start running out of cheap coal at that point.)
    >> Unmanaged descent: we’ll keep using fossil fuels, but the economic contraction due to oil depletion will hit hard enough that we’ll end up using less energy overall. In this way, we’ll haphazardly decrease our energy use at the expense of global human hardship. In this scenario, we’d probably avoid exceeding 450 ppm of CO2 simply due to a non-functioning economy, though we also won’t be able to build alternatives at anything near the rate I describe above.
    >> Managed descent: there are a lot of things that need to be done just right to manage our descent. First, we’d need policy-based solutions, either in the form of a carbon tax (or the equivalent) or energy quotas. Second, we’d need to stabilize swings in oil prices as I discussed before. Third, we’d need to invest in alternatives that have the highest capacity yield per unit time.
    About the Author:
    We’re a philosopher and a computer scientist trying to understand the world and the choices we make.

    Letter to the Editor, Wednesday, August 24, 10:14 AM
    Global Warming: Ever The Politically Hot Topic
    Regarding the Aug. 20 front-page article “The hot politics of global warming”:
    We should all be very worried about the condition of our democracy when major American politicians disagree with essentially the entire American scientific community’s assessment that humans are contributing to global warming. This seems rather like the political powers in Italy in 1632 disagreeing with Galileo that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic Church took this position because Galileo’s conclusions did not support church dogma, and it is obvious that some of our political leaders approach the global warming issue with their own dogmatic biases.

    Our democracy and country cannot prosper if we continue to elect politicians who argue against scientific evidence; they will doom our country to be a second-rate or worse nation.
    Larry C. Kindsvater, Falls Church

    NOAA report shows warmer weather in U.S.
    By Ashlie Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times – June 30, 2011
    The new normal is warmer. That’s the assessment of the nation’s top weather agency, which will release data Friday showing the 30-year “normal” temperature in the United States.

    “The climate of the 2000s is about 1.5 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the 1970s, so we would expect the updated 30-year normals to be warmer,” said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.

    The 30-year baseline is used by scientists to understand climate conditions and trends, including climate change. Besides providing a perspective for daily weather records, the data are widely used by utilities to project energy use, by farmers to make decisions on crop selection and planting times, and by others whose livelihoods are dependent on weather.

    Jim Hurrell, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said the rise in temperature was attributable to a buildup in greenhouse gases. “The climate is indeed warming and this is evidence for it,” Hurrell said.

    A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming recently reported that its data-crunching effort produced results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view on climate change.

    Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies who launched the reexamination, told a congressional hearing in April that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed temperature trends underlying climate science was “excellent…. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.”



    DATE: April 22, 2011
    Cell Phone: 1-503-360-3384 – USA

    For maximum impact and reduction of existing and future global poverty of over 2+ billion people, a new energy system is needed to replace the diminishing fossil fuels and for the elimination of occurring global climate changes with sufficient Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes. The European Union and the United Nations are expected to play a much greater role in global affairs in the near future, particularly with the availability of abundant Hydrogen Energy derived from the oceans. As of Jan. 24, 2011 the total world energy production in British Thermal Units (BTU) is falling short compared to world energy consumption by 4.7%.

    Millions of jobs can be created with abundant Hydrogen Energy obtained from the oceans which contain 11% Hydrogen and with a chemical regeneration process would form a substitute for all Fossil Fuels and Fossil Fuel Applications. My Hydrogen Regeneration Processes and Systems can produce unlimited energy supply for hundreds of years and can replace all Fossil Fuels for Europe and the global economy, without foreign interference, foreign exploitation, foreign politics, economic controls, foreign domination, foreign occupation and global energy wars. With abundant and save Hydrogen Energy supply, all energy costs can be domestically controlled by each country at very reasonable costs to industry and the public.

    Energy-starved future looms, military warns


    The Canadian military drew up four possible scenarios about the world’s energy supplies.

    The planet is running out of oil and heading toward a future that could trap Canada in a violent spiral of decline in the economy and the environment, a special research unit within the Canadian military is predicting.

    This “global quagmire” is one of four possible future scenarios advanced by the six members of the team who are developing a plan for the army of tomorrow based on existing scientific research and analysis.

    In a best-case scenario, they predict that Canada could be at the forefront of a prosperous green economy, in which clean energy and environmental protection are priorities and living standards improve around the world.

    Two other scenarios fall in between, but all four alternatives conclude that energy security and global environmental change are the most serious and unpredictable factors that could radically alter society as well as the role of Canada’s army.

    “It all depends on what kind of steps are taken today that could lead to various futures,” Peter Gizewski, a strategic analyst on the team, told Postmedia News.

    Members of the team said that climate change in particular could have a wide range of consequences, as well as oil shortages in a world with no alternative sources of energy.

    The team has also noted that the world is now consuming oil faster than it’s discovering it.

    “Globally, we find more (oil) all the time, but we haven’t actually found as much as we’ve used in a given year since 1985,” said Maj. John Sheahan, another member of the research team.”

    Sheahan noted that the price of a full tank of gasoline, even at $100, is a bargain when compared to estimates in some research that it would be equivalent to about 25,000 people each doing one hour of work.

    The global quagmire scenario predicts a world ravaged by climate change and environmental degradation in which “markets are highly unstable” and there are high risks of widespread conflicts involving ownership and access to oil, water, food and other resources.

    “Indeed, the danger of resource wars, both between and within states is acute,” said a technical paper produced by the group in December. “Much of the violence occurs in the developing world, as dictators, organized crime groups and revolutionary movements fight for control of increasingly desperate societies. Yet developed countries are by no means immune from strife.”

    In the best-case scenario, the team predicts that Canada could take a leadership role in the alternative energy and environmental fields after a series of technology sharing agreements with emerging economies and active support of developing sound international regimes and practices.
    Other drivers of change analyzed by the team were: the impact of age and demographics on military composition; exponential technology growth; human/social response to technology; expansion of operating environments; globalization; conflicting/shifting identities; power shifts; resource security; distribution of wealth and weapons proliferation.

    But members of the team said that energy security and environmental change are factors with the highest potential impacts and the greatest uncertainty.

    TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011
    Sunita Narain: Climate games and America

    Last fortnight, the final nail was driven into the action on climate-change coffin
    Sunita Narain / New Delhi March 28, 2011, 0:27 IST

    Last fortnight, the final nail was driven into the action on climate-change coffin. In the US, a crucial vote in the house sub-committee decided that the country’s Environment Protection Agency (EPA) would no longer have the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The committee voted we say that the threat from climate change was not real, urgent or even serious. They said that any steps to curtail emissions would impact manufacturing and energy industry in the US. This was not negotiable. In other words, the world is back to square one — where it started in 1992, at the Rio Conference and where US president George Bush said that his country’s lifestyle was not negotiable.

    But this is also not surprising. Over the past many years, each forward shift in the position of the emerging world to resolve the climate change deadlock has only meant a backward slide and hardening of position in the rich countries. Worse, in this period, there has been aggressive and often clandestine movement to shift the very nature of the global climate agreement to suit the US. But even with all this done and the framework changed to suit the US, the country has walked away. Let us understand this climate chess game:

    2009: By now it was clear that the democratic government of Barack Obama was not different from its predecessor, Bush. It was only more visible and more determined to have its way in the negotiations. All at once, the bar of compromise was shifted again. The concession made by the developing world at Bali was brushed aside as too little. The shrill call went out: China and India and all the other renegade polluters in our part of the world should state their emission reduction targets. Nobody asked what was the target the US was willing to put on the table and if this would be anywhere close to its global contribution to the problem of climate change. The pressure was on us to respond. It was also said and repeated that we were the deal breakers. India and China were not doing their bit to cut emissions. They wanted growth at all costs. This line was fed and swallowed by many Indian commentators and politicians alike.

    So, we caved in and complied once again. We put out our energy intensity reduction target; we put out a national action plan on climate change. China went aggressive in building a renewable energy portfolio. Brazil went on to cut its rates of deforestation. All this was done without any matching or even similar commitments from the US. The US continued to commission and build new coal-based power stations; increase its gas guzzling vehicle fleet and everything else.

    2009 Copenhagen: By now, the goal posts had been shifted again. Now, the Obama administration made it clear: nothing or all. It also stitched up a coalition of the willing with the Bush-like moto: with us or against us.

    2010 Cancun: The world capitulated to bring the US on board. The Cancun agreement is based on the US demand that there will be no legally-binding global agreements on the rich countries. Instead, there would be one agreement for all. This would be based on domestic actions, based not on historical emissions but on what each country was willing to do. But all these actions would be measured, reported and verified to ensure that countries were doing what they had agreed in their to domestic plans. There would be no promise of money or technology.

    In other words, a weak, ineffective deal designed by, and for, polluters. The justification was that this regime change was needed to bring the US on board. But now the US has rejected even this weak agreement. How low will the world have to “sink” to bring the world’s largest historical polluters to book?

    US Embassy Cables: Saudi Oil Company Oversold Ability To Increase Production, Embassy Told
    •, Tuesday 8 February 2011 22.00 GMT

    Cable dated:2007-12-10T05:54:00
    C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 RIYADH 002441
    E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/10/2017
    REF: RIYADH 1950

    Classified By: Consul General John Kincannon for reasons 1.4 b, d and e .


    Dr. Sadad al-Husseini met with CG and EconOff on November 20 to discuss current trends in the international energy market, as well as his thoughts on the Saudi energy sector. Al-Husseini served as Executive Vice President for Exploration and Production from 1992 until his retirement in 2004. He also served as a member of the Aramco Board of Directors from 1996 to retirement.

    In a December 1 (2007) presentation at an Aramco Drilling Symposium, Abdallah al-Saif, current Aramco Senior Vice President for Exploration and Production, reported that Aramco has 716 billion barrels (bbls) of total reserves, of which 51 percent are recoverable. He then offered the promising forecast – based on historical trends – that in 20 years, Aramco will have over 900 billion barrels of total reserves, and future technology will allow for 70 percent recovery.

    Al-Husseini disagrees with this analysis, as he believes that Aramco’s reserves are overstated by as much as 300 billion bbls of “speculative resources.” He instead focuses on original proven reserves, oil that has already been produced or which is available for exploitation based on current technology. All parties estimate this amount to be approximately 360 billion bbls. In al-Husseini’s view, once 50 percent depletion of original proven reserves has been reached and the 180 billion bbls threshold crossed, a slow but steady output decline will ensue and no amount of effort will be able to stop it. By al-Husseini’s calculations, approximately 116 billion barrels of oil have been produced by Saudi Arabia, meaning only 64 billion barrels remain before reaching this crucial point of inflection. At 12 million b/d production, this inflection point will arrive in 14 years.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated global depletion rates at 4 percent, while a 2006 Aramco statement has estimated Saudi Arabia’s overall depletion rate at 2 percent. Al-Husseini estimates that moving forward, satisfying increases in global demand will require bringing online annually at least 6 million b/d of worldwide output, 2 million to satisfy increased demand and 4 million to compensate for declining production in existing fields.

    The second issue that will limit any proposed Aramco output expansion can be broadly defined as a lack of supporting resources. For example, in al-Husseini’s estimation, it is not the amount of oil available that will prevent Aramco from reaching 12.5 million b/d by 2009, but rather issues such as a lack of available skilled engineers, a shortage of experienced construction companies, insufficient refining capacity, underdeveloped industrial infrastructure, and a need for production management (if too much oil is extracted from a well without proper planning and technique, a well’s potential output will be significantly damaged). As previously reported by post (Reftel), the Eastern Province economy is facing severe industrial expansion limits, and despite Aramco’s willingness to invest up to 50 billion USD to achieve the 2009 goal, availability of labor, materials and housing may end up as determinative factors.

    Considering the rapidly growing global demand for energy – led by China, India and internal growth in oil-exporting countries – and in light of the above mentioned constraints on expanding current capacity, al-Husseini believes that the recent oil price increases are not market distortions but instead reflect the underlying reality that demand has met supply (global energy supply having remained relatively stagnant over the past years at approximately 85 million barrels/day). He estimates that the current floor price of oil, removing all geopolitical instability and financial speculation, is approximately 70 – 75 USD/barrel. Due to the longer-term constraints on expanding global output, al-Husseini judges that demand will continue to outpace supply and that for every million b/d shortfall that exists between demand and supply, the floor price of oil will increase 12 USD. Al-Husseini added that new oil discoveries are insufficient relative to the decline of the super-fields, such as Ghawar, that have long been the lynchpin of the global market.

    COMMENT: While al-Husseini believes that Saudi officials overstate capabilities in the interest of spurring foreign investment, he is also critical of international expectations. He stated that the IEA’s expectation that Saudi Arabia and the Middle East will lead the market in reaching global output levels of over 100 million barrels/day is unrealistic, and it is incumbent upon political leaders to begin understanding and preparing for this “inconvenient truth.” Al-Husseini was clear to add that he does not view himself as part of the “peak oil camp,” and does not agree with analysts such as Matthew Simmons. He considers himself optimistic about the future of energy, but pragmatic with regards to what resources are available and what level of production is possible. While he fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, al-Husseini is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered. END COMMENT.

    (U) Dr. Sadad Ibrahim al-Husseini was born in Syria but raised in Saudi Arabia, his father a Saudi government official. He received a BS in Geology from the American University of Beirut in 1968, as well as an MS and Ph.D. in geological sciences from Brown University in 1970 and 1972, respectively. Al-Husseini also attended a Professional Management Program at Harvard Business School in 1982.

    RIYADH 00002441 003 OF 003 12.5 MBD IN 2009
    Joining Aramco in 1972, al-Husseini quickly advanced, becoming Senior Vice President for Exploration and Production in 1986. He was given the title Executive Vice President in 1992. Al-Husseini served on Aramco’s Management Committee from 1986 until 2004, and sat on the Aramco Board of Directors from 1996 – 2004. He retired on March 1, 2004. XXXXXXXXXXXX
    World news
    • Saudi Arabia •
    • The US embassy cables •
    • US foreign policy •
    • Middle East
    • US embassy cables: the documents
    More from US embassy cables: the documentson
    • Oil
    World news
    • Saudi Arabia •
    • The US embassy cables •
    • US foreign policy •
    • Middle East
    More on the US embassy cables

    Saudi Arabia cannot pump enough oil to keep a lid on prices
    US diplomat convinced that Saudi Arabia’s reserves may have been overstated by 40%, meaning oil price could start going out of control from 2012
    • US embassy cables: browse the database
    • Cable: Is Saudi boom reaching its limits?
    • Cable: US queries Saudi Arabia’s influence over oil prices
    • Cable: US concern over Saudi Arabia oil production
    • Cable: Saudi Arabia tackles western shift towards energy independence
    • More on the US embassy cables
    • 30 Nov 2010
    US embassy cables: Nicolas Sarkozy offends the Saudis with his bad manners
    • 8 Feb 2011
    US embassy cables: US concern over Saudi Arabia oil production
    • 2 Feb 2011
    US embassy cables: Is Saudi boom reaching its limits?
    • 8 Feb 2011
    US embassy cables: Saudi Arabia tackles western shift towards energy independence

    COMMENTS BY MANFRED ZYSK, M.E. – 2/11/2011

    It is noteworthy to remember that this Embassy Cable was written on December 10, 2007, but it also needs to be realized that Dr. Sadad al-Hussaini’s comments are still protecting the interests of Saudi Aramco, and his overall future world oil supply and production research are not entirely realistic and feasible.

    This also explains the U.S. Military activities today in Afghanistan and Pakistan and our anticipated oil pipeline construction, energy plans and our determined activities in that entire Mid-East region.

    As most oil producing countries are experiencing major depletion of oil from their oil fields and are not able to produce many new and large oil field discoveries, then these oil producing countries naturally are forced to reduce production, and will engage in what can be called “Oil Hoarding Schemes” which among several other ways and exploitive schemes will substantially limit or reduce the availability of oil for the world economy. With the onset of higher oil prices and an uncertain domestic and world economic outlook due to an obvious energy crunch, unfortunately a major economic downturn can be expected. It can also be expected that when 60% of global oil fields are exhausted, then “Oil Hoarding” becomes common practice to protect their own national economy from economic collapse. It appears that Peak Oil was already reached in about 2007-2009, and the world economy is straining to utilize any other available energy resources, and then natural gas, coal and oil were then lumped together into fossil fuel production tabulation results, in order not to reveal the decline of oil.

    The greatest and most powerful energy resource that remains available in abundance is hydrogen energy (11%) that is processed from ocean water and into new Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Systems and Processes for use for most energy applications, and to provide adequate energy supply for the future to the global population and for several centuries.

    GE Leads New Decade of Reliable Oil and Gas Innovation – 2011.02.01 – Industry
    Leaders from some of the world’s largest oil and gas exploration and production companies, including BP, Chevron, Petronas, Saudi Aramco and Woodside, are among the 1,000 industry representatives gathered in Florence, Italy to attend the 12th GE Oil & Gas Annual Meeting.

    To offset the depletion of oil and gas reserves and meet demand to 2020, additional resources equivalent to approximately five (5) times the oil capacity currently produced by Saudi Arabia and four (4) times the gas capacity currently produced by Russia will be required.

    USGS drops estimate of Alaska’s undiscovered oil by fully 90 percent.
    October 27, 2010 Oil, Top Ten Signposts to Energy Crisis

    The U.S. Geological Survey assesses conventional, undiscovered oil in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska as a fraction of a previous estimate: 896 million barrels, about 90 percent less than a 2002 estimate of 10.6 billion barrels. The reason: drilling has shown more gas than oil recently.
    Tags: Alaska


    The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO-USA) asserted today that the world is facing a significant energy crisis, as the rate of oil production cannot keep pace with demand. The world is consuming four (4) barrels of oil for every (1) discovered, more than 80 million barrels of oil per day. After 150 years of oil extraction, most major oil exporting nations are well past their supply peaks, defined by scientists as “Peak Oil.

    “We are at the point of no return,” stated Jim Baldauf, President of ASPO-USA. “While global demand is accelerating, worldwide oil supply have reached a plateau and are now in decline. The era of lo-cost, easy-to-get oil has come to an end, a moment of historic significance and one fraught with danger. The Gulf of Mexico disaster occurred because the quest for new supplies requires that we drill miles beneath the ocean surface. Without affordable energy to drive our economy, we can expect price spikes and economic crisis to be the new normal. The debate about Peak Oil is over; it is time for bold action. If we do not change our current approach, we will see tremendous global repercussions.”

    Today representatives from across the political spectrum came together to discuss the severity of this issue and potential solutions.

    Several published articles describe plans of Russia joining the European Union in the near future. France, Germany and Russia met in France on October 17 and 18, 2010 to discuss the completion of unification and integration of Russia’s population and economy with the European Union by the year 2025. The present population of the European Union is 501 million, and the population of Russia is 146 million, for a combined total population of 647 million. Additional countries are expected to join the European Union like Turkey with a population of 74 million people, the Ukraine with 46 million people and 12 regional satellite countries with 68 million people for a combined total of 835 million people.

    Microsoft to open R&D center in Russia’s hi-tech hub
    November 1, 2010
    U.S. software giant Microsoft Corp. will establish a research and development center in the Skolkovo innovation hub near Moscow, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Skolkovo president Viktor Vekselberg said on Monday.


    “According to the International Energy Agency, global energy demand will grow 55% by 2030. The period up to 2030, the energy supply infrastructure worldwide will require a total investment of USD 26 TRILLION, with about half of that in developing countries. If the world does not manage to green these investments by directing them into climate-friendly technologies, emissions will go up by 50% by 2050, instead of down by 5%, as science requires.”

    THE OREGONIAN – January 29, 2010

    Greenland’s vast ice cap melted at a record rate last year in a trend scientists say could bring a major rise in global sea level over the decades ahead. “This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average,” said Marco Tedesco, director of the Cryospheric Processes Laboratory at CCNY. Scientists say the sea level would rise by 23 feet if it were to melt entirely. June 4, 2011 . . . “Warmer oceans have increased water vapor by 4% and is expected to increase.”

    HARDER THAN FINANCIAL CRISIS – November 22, 2010

    As the UN Climate Summit in Cancun approaches, the insurance industry is preparing to present its case to the politicians, business leaders and scientists, who will be attending. “In our global industry insurance business alone, 40% of damages are due to storms and floods. Also, for our asset management entities, we have to watch rising temperatures. Government climate policies affect the value of companies and hence influence our investment decisions.”

    Allianz noted that this appeal “is repeated annually, based on the lack of progress of both the world’s major industrial powers and the emerging countries in the race against global warming.” “What is needed are binding worldwide targets for carbon emissions. To reduce CO2 emissions governments have to provide clear and predictable climate policies for the private sector to become active. Otherwise we’ll inevitably see devastating impacts on the environment and society that will cause enormous costs for the global economy in the long run. Politicians need to take action, before it’s too late.

    “Exactly 259 investors signed the statement, who together represent combined assets under management worth over 15 Trillion US dollars. This figure is equivalent to the annual GDP of the United States, or to more than 25% of the world’s total market capitalization.” – End.

    It’s Time for the Senate to Get to Work
    U.S. SENATOR JEFFERY MERKLEY – December 17, 2010

    Sadly, the Senate isn’t able to do much to meet this or other challenges because it’s become a dysfunctional institution where deliberation is rare and obstruction is rampant. At the heart of Senate dysfunction is the filibuster, a tool that is being regularly abused to block legislation and effectively bring the Senate to a standstill. In order to overcome obstruction and get our economy moving again, Senator Merkley is working with his colleagues to fix the filibuster and get the Senate back to work.

    As it stands now, a single Senator can delay a bill from even being considered by simply making a phone call to a clerk and then going home. Senator Merkley is working to make the filibuster a public act of courage. Senators should make their case before the American people and explain why the majority is making such a colossal mistake that we should suspend normal democratic decision-making.

    Our nation is facing serious challenges – from backbreaking unemployment to a persistent housing crisis. Working families can’t afford Senate inaction any longer. It’s time to end Senate paralysis and get to work. – END.

    Energy, and especially inexpensive energy is the most valuable natural resource, and energy drives the world economy. The global reliance upon Fossil Fuels is producing Carbon Dioxide Emissions which are causing Global Climate Changes. The volume of future energy demands by the global population clearly shows the short supply of Fossil Fuels today, including the exhaustion of Fossil Fuel in the near future.

    Any alternatives to Fossil Fuel such as Renewable Fuels of Bio-fuels, Solar, Wind and nuclear power (the United States imports 83% of uranium from 8 countries) for electricity generation for the use in cars, industrial requirements and domestic use, et cetera, are clearly insufficient to meet present and future economic demands, with the exception of Hydrogen obtained from the oceans which contain 11% Hydrogen, and of regenerating Hydrogen through a continuous chemical regeneration process within a closed loop system.

    When adding up the energy values of renewable fuels and the usage in electric cars and national future requirements, and then comparing the energy consumption results to oil and gasoline energy values to satisfy population growth, then renewable fuels and electric cars are totally inadequate and too expensive for industrialized countries. Natural Gas Liquids have only 65% of BTU’s compared to oil. Recently, the U.S. Dept. of Energy entered into a co-op agreement with China for a joint $100 million for advanced energy research, because the U.S. auto industry, corporations and universities have failed to produce the needed technology for future energy requirements within the last 30 years, and the fuel cell research by the U.S. government was a total waste of money from the technological standpoint.

    Now the U.S. wants other countries to provide the technological research and energy solutions at little or no cost to the United States. Obviously, any countries involved in energy research would obtain patent rights, and any new energy technology development will not be free for the United States. At the same time over one (1) Trillion Dollars are wasted to gain control of the Mid-East oil reserves, which then can be used to control the global economy.

    My Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems have been proposed to the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT numerous times for over 40 years, but the U.S. Government is more interested in spending over 1 Trillion Dollars per year for the Defense Department and the Military Industrial Complex for waging wars in the Mid-East over oil, which is bankrupting the United States to the tune of debts now amounting to over 14.08 Trillion Dollars.

    Even at this time of economic desperation, the Unite States Senators and Congressmen are adamantly opposed to any meaningful solutions, and even condemn the educational system and practical science. The plan to shutter domestic industries and then to financially take over the world economy, while attempting of controlling the world oil supply, has resulted into a complete failure.

    The United States Government is in such array and confusion, that I find it impossible to rescue the United States from their delusions of World Economic Control and their visions of 21st Century American World Domination. The economic progress and prosperity derived from the automobile, steel industry and telecommunication industries somehow are simply being scrapped from existence, in favor of global domination plans with shrill religious conversion and crusade overtones. The United States Senator Bernard Sanders disclosed on a radio program that the United States has lost 42,000 Manufacturing Companies in the last ten (10) years.


    Elections come and go, but the United States is still careening toward bankruptcy. By 2020, the U.S. will be spending $1 trillion a year just to pay the interest on the national debt. Sometime between now and then the catastrophe will come. It will come with amazing swiftness. . . . the shock will be grievous, national humiliation, diminished power in the world, drastic cuts and spreading pain.

    So we continue on the headlong path toward a national disaster. And along the way our dysfunctional political system will leave all sorts of other problems unaddressed: immigration, energy policy and on and on. Yet, I’m optimistic right now. I’m optimistic because while our political system is a mess, the economic and social values of the country remain sound.

    Over the past few years, we have seen millions of people mobilize – some behind President Barack Obama and others around the tea parties. The country is restive and looking for alternatives. The coming movement . . . will preserve America’s standing in the world on the grounds that this supremacy is a gift to our children and a blessing for the earth. – END

    The future of England, Germany, France and the rest of Europe can become an incredible experience with the full development of Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems, and will provide much greater economic development than all of the present Fossil Fuel Resources combined that is being produced and supplied by high profit oriented foreign corporations and foreign countries, which produces very limited economic progress because of exploitive fossil fuel energy pricing and profiteering. Please see website:

    The low cost of energy always produces major domestic economic development, benefits and many new jobs for all industries, businesses and citizens. If an abundance of energy can be produced and supplied at 30% to 60% less costs than all Fossil Fuels for several centuries, then all other industries including the entire population will thrive and prosper. Depending upon the domestic valuations and social development system and plans, it may be possible to produce Hydrogen Energy by more than 60% in less costs compared to present Fossil Fuel energy costs. Some indications point to much better performance resulting in much lower operating costs for Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems, but before making any claims, thorough practical application tests of actual products are required for cars, trucks, electric power plants, chemical plants, agriculture and numerous other energy applications.

    If most of the European Countries are able to produce all energy from hydrogen obtained from the oceans by and for themselves, and without foreign oil suppliers, then that will generate great economic progress, and then my Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems can also be developed in Asia, Africa and South America.

    But the United States Government simply does not care and is rather inclined to re-establish a slave system. Individual Senators and Congressmen appear to be afraid to contact me, and only acknowledge of having received my basic technical disclosure documents, and then request political donations and campaign contributions about every other day.

    I do know of a rather large oil and/or a combination natural gas deposit in Russia which has to date not been explored. This oil/gas deposit in Russia is and will be worthwhile in the future, including many mineral deposits. To date the total exploration of Russia’s landmass is still approximately below 10%, and Europe and Russia mutually may find any large deposits of oil and minerals of substantial economic value. The mutual and joint economic development of Europe and Russia can be extremely beneficial and very productive for all countries involved.

    I do know of the types of new technology and products which are suitable for broad public affordability and economic initiatives which would be welcome and find broad acceptance by the European and Russian population. A lucrative mutual economic development plan should be made that will generate great satisfaction to all participating parties.

    The United States Government has now been officially notified of this plan as of Dec. 28, 2010, but similar economic development plans have been deliberately ignored. The U.S. military is overextended worldwide and the Military Industrial Complex cannot perpetually generate more wars and impose massive weapon sales worldwide. With the bankrupt U.S. economy and financial dilemma, the Military Industrial Complex and government should appreciate the vast cost reductions from the present over 1 Trillion Dollar annual military and defense budgets. These huge savings can re-invigorate the U.S. Economy, since there are really no more real enemies to declare further wars on. Please see my website:

    However, if England, Germany, France, and other European countries, and the United Nations combined are proceeding with the Global Climate Change Initiatives including my Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems, then the United States should approve and/or will be offered continuously the utilization of my Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems, in spite of their constant vilifications and condemnations against beneficial technology, products, education and basic science.

    Sufficient funding is required for the multitude of Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Applications and Products and to conduct complete verifiable research by scientists and physicists, development, testing, manufacturing, production and plant installation at 2-3 ocean testing locations by participating countries, preferably on a high priority schedule, including all necessary patent work. With today’s technology, Hydrogen Energy Regeneration can be developed and used safely and very economically. Of utmost importance is to make Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems very inexpensive for all applications and for all industries before launching this permanent and great new energy resource.

    With best regards,

    Manfred Zysk, M.E.
    Canby, Oregon 97013 – USA
    Phone: 503-266-1483 – Pacific Time Zone
    Cell Phone: 503-360-3384

    SEPTEMBER 24, 2010

    The United States Republican Party unveiled their plan for governing America on Sept. 23, 2010 and pledged to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; to roll back regulations on big oil and Wall Street; to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars.

    The U.S. Republican Party offers no solutions to the outsourcing of American jobs; are not prepared to discuss protecting Social Security and Medicare; have no plans to invest in key industries like clean energy and manufacturing; have no plan for education or teachers; do not talk about rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and railways. They’re offering up the very same agenda that put us on a path to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

    By: Manfred Zysk, M.E. – September 15, 2010

    The Hon. President Barack Obama August 22, 2010
    The Hon. Vice President Joseph Biden
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20500

    cc: Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy
    Mr. Kenneth Salazar, Sec. of Interior
    Mr. Gary Locke, Sec. of Commerce
    Ms. Janet Napolitano, Sec. of Homeland Security
    Mr. Ray LaHood, Sec. of Transportation
    Ms. Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency
    The Hon. Senator John Kerry
    The Hon. Senator Merkley
    The Hon. Senator Ronald Wyden
    The Hon. Congressman Ed Markey
    The Hon. Congressman Kurt Schrader

    Dear Mr. President Obama and Vice President Biden:

    The great abundance of energy propelled the United States into a huge economic power and into a very prominent and rich country and produced huge opportunities for many people who became millionaires and billionaires. Very large companies and corporations were created by the American people, who invested into these companies and corporations, and the employees were given incentives such as employee profit sharing plans and retirement funds in addition to government sponsored social security. The American people created these millionaires, billionaires, companies and huge corporations through their hard work in this relatively empty country.

    The availability of oil and gasoline produced tremendous economic progress with the national highway system, affordable cars and the transportation system up until now, when we need to import over 67% of oil from foreign countries according to IEA in April 2010. The United States economy is very dependent upon oil for transportation, and for our food supply, but when the imported and diminishing oil is becoming very expensive, or too expensive to sustain our existing lifestyle in our country, then an alternate method of energy of equal or better value has to be found to meet future demands.

    Oil availability has served us and the worldwide industrialization well, but now as we are running out of inexpensive oil, we need to produce a more permanent energy source, which should replace all oil and fossil fuel energy applications. The existing remaining oil should be preserved primarily for necessary future lubrication requirements and special industrial requirements.

    There is simply no other choice but to develop my Hydrogen Energy Regeneration Processes and Systems to supply the vast amount of future energy demands for the United States and for the rest of the globe.

    My evaluation in 1962 indicated that if some industries closed or left the United States, then the United States would lose not only global power, but also enter into a economic depression with far reaching consequences. As if to mock my research, the U.S. government proceeded with political power schemes at the United Nations, and with economic suppression tactics and international stock market activities on various continents. The plan to dispose of our industries and then exercise global financial control was adopted by establishing stock markets worldwide, which could be plundered, whenever convenient.

    All the U.S. companies and corporations loved these great foreign opportunities, until it became clear that our government could not possibly support all these “permanent” war schemes including the bailout of our multi-national banks and corporations simultaneously and without taxation. So the plan was to develop and to acquire control over all Arab Oil Deposits through the State Department, Intelligence Activities, with the assistance of “Shock & Awe” tactics by our military and wars. Anyone who opposed our invasion and occupation of the Mid-East Countries could be subjected to imprisonment and torture including children and civilians, with full approval by the president and top government officials.

    According to my estimations in 1963, the Arab countries would never give up their ownership of their oil reserves no matter how much destruction we unleash. Instead, the Arabs would fight against the occupation of their lands and rather destroy these oil fields, before we can take their precious oil away. Even our long term occupation has not changed their rightful determination to their ownership of natural resources and sovereignty of their land. My research has been proven to be correct.

    During the Cuban Missile Crisis, I considered the design of a small jet plane, similar in size of a car for defense and public transportation. Please see 3 typical illustrations in Chapter 4-A of Small Jet Plane for Commercial and Defense Use in Naturally the Military Industrial Complex and our government would oppose such plans because it would interfere with their plans for total global economic control. These U.S. activities and plans were not only totally false, but rather irrational.

    My small jet plane would reduce global defense spending and improve our relationship with Europe and most Asian countries, and create a more vibrant global economy. This small jet plane would consume additional fuel, and I started to research global oil deposits, but found that a new energy source was needed in the near future, in spite of the fact that the oil companies claimed that there are enough oil reserves in existence. I found that the oil companies could