Less than 24 hours after Bucks County, Pennsylvania, filed a climate lawsuit against essential energy producers, it seems like the only ones applauding the commissioners’ decision are Washington D.C. climate activists. [emphasis, links added]
Meanwhile, voices across the state are decrying the lawsuit as “hypocritical,” “nonsensical,” and “abusive” while highlighting that the suit was seemingly discussed with little public daylight, leaving more questions than answers.
"Bucks County is the first Pennsylvania government to file a climate accountability lawsuit against Big Oil companies, but it likely won’t be the last." https://t.co/87sSZQJY2c pic.twitter.com/PNgL6tbgwj
— Center for Climate Integrity (@climatecosts) March 25, 2024
HUGE news! The movement to make polluters pay for climate damages has come to Pennsylvania.
More than 1/4 of Americans now live in cities, states or counties that are suing Big Oil. https://t.co/Blhs9iByK5
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) March 26, 2024
Here’s What Pennsylvanians Are Saying:
David N. Taylor, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s President and CEO said:
“The industry, especially here in Pennsylvania, has a proven track record of doing business responsibly and making tangible environmental gains, something that the climate fanatics conveniently ignore. It’s unfortunate Bucks County took the bait of a copy-and-paste lawsuit pushed by out-of-state activists and billionaire hypocrites over the well-being of Pennsylvanians.”
Kurt Knaus, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Energy Infrastructure Alliance echoed this:
“These local lawsuits do nothing to address our real energy challenges. In fact, lawsuits like this actually undercut Pennsylvania’s role in addressing climate change. Electric sector-related emissions have plummeted in recent years as more natural gas has come online to meet our growing power demands. That has led to cleaner air across our commonwealth.
“The United States is reducing greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other country in the world, an achievement tied to our emergence as the world’s top natural gas producer. The timing of this lawsuit has little to do with environmental concerns and everything to do with concerns over the coming election.”
Curt Schroder, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform highlighted the legal profiteering:
“Bucks County and its elected county officials have relied on oil and natural gas for decades to meet their transportation needs and to power their once-mighty steel industrial base. Yet the commissioners have filed climate change litigation for a situation they helped cause. When can we expect all county-owned vehicles to be electric or all the county buildings to be powered by renewables? One would expect such actions to follow immediately upon the heels of the action taken by the county leaders.
“Pennsylvanians already pay a hefty ‘tort tax’ that goes right into the pockets of out-of-state trial lawyers, and this lawsuit will only raise costs even higher for hard-working people across the state – all without advancing real climate solutions. Lawsuits targeting the lawful production of energy are an abuse of our state’s civil justice system and an end-run around the democratic process.”
Meanwhile, questions about the conspicuously secretive process of the litigation were highlighted by the Pennsylvania press.
From the Marcellus Drilling News:
“The problem is this lawfare seemingly came out of nowhere. It was hatched secretly by green groups, including the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) – a Rockefeller-funded D.C. activist group. There were no public meetings. No public input. No public announcements. It was completely hush-hush, with a full media blackout until the lawsuit was filed. In other words, it was CORRUPT. Whose pockets are getting lined by this action?”
Bottom Line: The nationally coordinated and billionaire-funded climate litigation campaign may have found a willing proxy in Bucks County, but Pennsylvania businesses and industry are coming out strong against the lawsuit that will only drive up consumer costs and put Pennsylvania workers out of business.
Read more at EID Climate
John D Rodkefeller Snr. would be rolling in his grave, to think his legacy is paying for this garbage.
Shame on his descendants.
I predict Bucks County will drop the lawsuit or attempt to settle out of court… I just sent them and all the CEOs of the companies being sued an email containing my file.
Greetings.
“Get all your i’s dotted and all your t’s crossed” is generally good advice when filing a lawsuit… another good bit of advice is: “Ensure that what you’re suing over actually aligns with reality.”.
The Bucks County lawsuit against fossil fuel companies is predicated upon a premise that does not align with reality. If the defendants utilize the information contained below and attached, they can easily argue that they only “knew” about the purported “damage” that CO2 would supposedly do to the climate because they’d been led astray on the science by the climatologists.
In any case, your claimed “damage” will not and cannot occur… to claim that it has, will or could implies rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws. And the fundamental physical laws are the only laws that are truly never broken.
If they do utilize the information contained herein, not only will your lawsuit be quashed, it will destroy the entirety of the CAGW charade… it is all provably based upon a false premise.
The CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) hypothesis has been disproved… it does not reflect reality.
All of the offshoots of the CAGW hypothesis (EPA CO2 Endangerment finding, SEC emission reporting requirement, social cost of carbon, carbon capture and sequestration, net zero, carbon credit trading, replacing reliable fossil-fueled or nuclear baseload electrical generation with unreliable ‘renewables’, etc.) are based upon the conclusion from CAGW that CO2 causes deleterious climate effects, and thus are likewise moot.
The CAGW hypothesis relies upon a false premise, is predicated upon a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, is sustained via a half-truth (and thus a lie-by-omission), and implies rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
In the attached paper, I definitively, mathematically disprove the CAGW hypothesis; I prove it is brought about via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation; I use the “Earth Energy Balance” graphic from Kiehl-Trenberth (it and all subsequent similar graphics represent the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) as an empirical example of this mathematical proof; I further prove that what the climatologists claim to be happening blatantly violates 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law, and is hence unphysical.
The climatologists have misused the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation (and the fundamental physical laws), and in the process, have practically flipped reality on its head… polyatomics (CO2, H2O, etc.) are not “global warming gases”, they are net atmospheric radiative coolants (radiative emission to space being the only way that Earth can shed energy); monoatomics (Ar) are not inert gases that have no effect upon climate, they are the actual “greenhouse gases” (because they cannot emit IR, and thus cannot shed energy to space… they dilute the radiative coolant gases); homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) are somewhere in between… they can radiatively emit IR (and thus shed energy from the system known as ‘Earth’), but only under certain conditions (collisional perturbation of their net-zero electric dipole, which is why homonuclear diatomic vibrational mode quantum states are meta-stable and relatively long-lived. Collisions happen exponentially less frequently as altitude increases), and thus are “greenhouse gases” like the monoatomics, just not to the same extent.
We live, at the planet’s surface, in what can be analogized to the evaporator section of a world-sized AC unit, with polyatomics being net atmospheric radiative coolants (a higher concentration of them increases thermodynamic coupling between heat source (surface) and sink (space)), and with monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics playing the same role as non-condensable gases would play in an AC unit… diluting the polyatomic radiative gases which transit the majority of the energy, thus reducing the efficiency at which energy is transited from surface to upper atmosphere, then radiatively emitted to space.
Think about it this way… we all know the air warms up during the daytime as the planet’s surface absorbs energy from the sun. Conduction of that energy when air contacts the planet’s surface is the major reason air warms up.
How does that ~99% of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) cool down? It cannot effectively radiatively emit.
Convection moves energy around in the atmosphere, but it cannot shed energy to space. Conduction depends upon thermal contact with other matter and since space is essentially a vacuum, conduction cannot shed energy to space… this leaves only radiative emission. The only way our planet can shed energy is via radiative emission to space. Fully ~76.2% of all surface energy is removed via convection, advection and evaporation. The surface only radiatively emits ~23.8% of all surface energy to space. That ~76.2% must be emitted to space by the atmosphere.
Thus, common sense dictates that the thermal energy of the constituents of the atmosphere which cannot effectively radiatively emit (N2, O2, Ar) must be transferred to the so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ (CO2 being a lesser contributor below the tropopause and the largest contributor above the tropopause, water vapor being the main contributor below the tropopause) which can radiatively emit and thus shed that energy to space. Peer-reviewed studies corroborating this are referenced in the attached file.
So, far from being ‘greenhouse gases’ which ‘trap heat’ in the atmosphere, those polyatomic radiative gases actually shed energy from the atmosphere to space. They are net atmospheric radiative coolants.
In short, in an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all polyatomic radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric radiative coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding particles (atoms or molecules) exceeds the lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via thermalization (the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time), but if that occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process. It is a gradation… as temperature increases, so too does the population of vibrationally excited polyatomics, and thus increases radiative emission. For CO2, that ‘transition temperature’ (the temperature at which the molecule transitions from being ‘net warmant’ to ‘net coolant’ and vice versa) is ~288 K.
https://i.imgur.com/CxVTcro.png
You will note that while the graphic above only addresses CO2 and N2, the same applies to all atmospheric gases due to the Equipartition Theorem.
https://i.imgur.com/19eLZin.png
The Boltzmann Factor (for air at 288 K and for the combined translation mode (kinetic) energy of two colliding particles (atoms or molecules) necessary to excite CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state) is ~0.8461… in other words, for every 100 air particles at the Most Probable Speed (MPS), ~84 other particles will have sufficient combined translational mode (kinetic) energy to excite CO2’s lowest excited vibrational mode quantum state CO2{v21(1)} during collision.
The climatologists only told people half the story (the half-truth referenced above… thermalization by CO2 via vibrational mode to translation mode (v-t) collisional energy transfer processes. They didn’t tell anyone about the inverse (the lie-by-omission referenced above)… translational mode to vibrational mode (t-v) collisional energy transfer processes (then that energy being radiatively emitted to space), which is a cooling process. That didn’t fit their doomsaying narrative, so they left it out.
In other words, the climatologists only told people about the warming part (thermalization), not the cooling part. In order to hew to the fundamental physical laws, one must consider energy flow both to and from the CO2 molecule.
Now, on to how the climatologists were able to flip reality on its head…
https://i.stack.imgur.com/l4dfb.gif
The climatologists use:
q = σ T4
… on graybody objects, and sometimes slap ε<1 onto that, when they should be using:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4)
Essentially, the climatologists are treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects… with emission to 0 K and emissivity of 1 (sometimes… other times they slap emissivity onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation while still assuming emission to 0 K… which is still a misuse of the S-B equation, for graybody objects).
This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.
That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’… it is nothing more than a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation.
As I show in the attached paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.
2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (remember that while 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense only mentions temperature, temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law), that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).
The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative. As I show in the attached paper, this is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient).
In other words, the entirety of the CAGW industry is built upon a foundation of mathematical fraudery, and we’re all being lied to. Given that the climatologists are purportedly highly educated, there’s no way they’d slip up on such an elementary issue… ergo, it must be intentional deception. The only other possible explanation is profound incompetence on the part of the climatologists.
This means that the offshoots of CAGW… social cost of carbon, net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, carbon credit trading, etc. are as equally useless as CAGW… because the proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the S-B equation shows that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (peer-reviewed empirical studies are referenced in the attached paper corroborating this), not a “global warming gas”.
This doesn’t just apply to CO2 (which is a net atmospheric radiative coolant at all altitudes except for negligible warming at the tropopause, where it absorbs a greater proportion of cloud-reflected IR solar insolation, and picks up energy from vibrational mode-to-vibrational mode collisional energy transfer from solar insolation-excited O3, to N2, to CO2), however. It applies to all atmospheric polyatomic molecules (in fact, far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause, as I show in the attached paper). So while the climate catastrophists are attempting to shift from CO2 to CH4 (methane) as their climate bogeyman, it won’t work because their narrative still relies upon that same misinterpretation of the fundamental physical laws and misuse of the S-B equation.
These concepts used to be common knowledge. Somewhere along the way, the concepts got skewed to fit a particular narrative. Eventually, the concepts described herein will be common knowledge again, whereupon CAGW and its offshoots will be dumped on the midden heap of bad scientific ideas.
If you’ve an impartial physicist available, have them review the attached paper… you’ll find everything I write hews to the fundamental physical laws, and uses bog-standard thermodynamics, radiative theory, cavity theory, dimensional analysis, electrical theory and quantum theory.
Then ask a climatologist… they’ll claim it’s junk science… except it was all taken directly from physics tomes, and the climatologist is just attempting to protect their gravy train. Then ask the climatologist how their latest “Earth Energy Balance” graphic (remember that the “Earth Energy Balance” graphic represents the mathematics used in their Energy Balance Climate Models) could possibly arrive at 398 W m-2 surface radiant exitance at their claimed 288 K average global temperature… that’s not even physically possible (you can do the calculation using the S-B equation to see this for yourself). Watch as they hem and haw in attempting to explain their junk science. In other words, in order to keep their alarmist narrative at a fever pitch, they had to keep increasing the numbers… and they’ve now verged into physical impossibilities.
The attached paper is being distributed to lawmakers, attorneys, judges, businesses and business associations, unions, media outlets, farmers, ranchers, climatologists, teachers, professors and physicists worldwide. A layperson version is being produced so everyone can easily grasp the concepts. We’ve also submitted proposals to governmental Educational Associations to include the scientific concepts within the attached paper in elementary and high school curricula so children are less likely to become radicalized into leftist environmental groups. Soon, the entire world will know of the perfidy of the climatologists.
I’ve developed a “poison the well” legal strategy which I’m sharing with the legal departments of energy companies… if they are sued by climate catastrophists, they can get the information contained herein entered into the record in a court of law, which destroys CAGW and all of its offshoots. The climate catastrophists have no defense against this… a judge excluding entry of provable and long-established and oft-corroborated scientific fact into the court record would be quickly removed from the bench and possibly disbarred; and the plaintiff cannot deny the scientific reality of the fundamental physical laws. Thus, the climate catastrophists have a choice to make: Either forego the lawsuit, or forge ahead with the lawsuit and in the process destroy CAGW, all of its offshoots and the entire premise for their lawsuit. They cannot prevail in any case.
The energy companies may use the information herein and attached however they wish… rewrite it to make it more easily understood, then publish it under your own name; publish it in whole or in part under your own name; round-file it; whatever. I prefer no attribution to myself. I do not seek recognition, I seek to destroy the CAGW scam before it destroys our way of life.
That file:
https://www.udrop.com/LBfi/Climate_Sanity.pdf
— or —
https://www.patriotaction.us/attachment.php?aid=605
We need Total Tort Reform no more stupid Climate Based Lawsuits
The entire issue pushing these foolish and expensive big government regulations such as “EV Mandates” is the supposed existential Climate Change issue. Those of us who study this issue know the scientific facts which refute the climate apocalypse claims, but we need to get the average voting citizen on board. If you haven’t done it yet, watch this new 1 hour documentary movie. Then, share it with others. It’s a great summary which tears the underlying scientific foundation from the climate change hoax.
PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE “CLIMATE: THE MOVIE (THE COLD TRUTH)” https://youtu.be/zmfRG8-RHEI?si=aOR62XLzS6pqk4U0