Reasonable Sustainability Requirements

    There is another article in the September 24 issue of C&E News entitled, "Sustaining Business" by Alex Scott. He indicates that industry in general and the chemical industry specifically is struggling to implement a profitable business model in the world of limited resources and increasing environmental risk.
    This problem has obviously existed for some time, but has become increasingly significant for consideration because of somewhat ridiculous self-imposed limitations by customer companies. For example, the airline industry is expecting a complete elimination of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. A US flooring company expects to eliminate all oil use, emissions and waste at an unspecified date.
    Like anything else, people can develop ridiculous anticipations and goals. However, the chemical industry should continue to adapt to reasonable requirements, while noting obvious limitations. For example it may be possible to use a propulsion system which would eliminate CO2 emissions for airline use,. However, if the cost of such a system is radically higher than present costs, it obviously would not "fly".

Goodbye Rudy Baum

    I have read Rudy Baum's editorials in the September 10th and September 17 issues of Chemical and Engineering News. The September 10 issue editorial is entitled, "Once More on Climate Change". It is a two-column editorial of about equal length for each column. The first column covers primarily global temperature changes in modern times. I cannot refute any of the temperature data which he indicates, but I can refute his speculation that this has been caused by the activities of mankind. An example of the fallacy of his position, is that he makes no mention of the fact that during dinosaur times, the world was apparently considerably warmer, possibly warmer than at present, and this had followed one of the previous ice ages.
    In the second column, Rudy objects to some readers insisting that he should have spent more time during his editorial career on chemistry, the chemical industry, and the weak job situation. He finds it difficult to understand that attitude, because he considers climate disruption as the greatest challenge facing humanity today. He quotes a couple of people who have addressed an ACS National Meeting and a Presidential Symposium, and who have apparently agreed with his emotion. This does not necessarily make it correct.
    I do not dispute the fact that climate changes significantly over hundreds of years, with less noticeable annual changes year to year. But, I do dispute the notion that mankind has had a significant contribution in that change. My basic objection is to the thought of climate change enthusiasts that increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is responsible for global warming. Similar to the "Flat Earth" theory of the Middle Ages, no one seems interested in investigating its legitimacy.
    Just for starters, let's consider two facts. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very low and therefore likely to have little effect. Secondly, thermal resistivity of various gases have been measured, and it has been found that the resistivity of carbon dioxide to heat transmission is not significantly higher than that for oxygen and nitrogen, the major components of the atmosphere. In addition, minor gases in the atmosphere have resistivities to the passage of heat at levels higher than that of carbon dioxide.
    With all of the federal money being dumped into the universities on grants, is it unreasonable to expect that we can get on with some real scientific work in either confirming or disputing the last of the previous two facts?
    Contrary to Rudy Baum's opinion, I see no basis for mankind to attempt control of climate. If control freaks want to control something, why not start with controlling weather? With floods and droughts and significant areas of arid land in the US, weather control would be a real asset. Conversely, control of climate is expected to be significantly more difficult, especially if we find the carbon dioxide effect on global warming to be unrealistic.
        Rudy's editorial of September 17 requires considerably less comment.
    That editorial is basically his "Swan song". He reviews the professional aspects of his editorial life and "makes nice" with his appreciation for the cooperation of his staff and bosses. They may be sorry to see him leave, but I am not.
    I believe Rudy has done considerable damage to this country through use of C&E News in promoting big government and promoting the carbon dioxide/global warming hypothesis.

Congratulations to the New Editor-In-Chief of C&E News

Dear Dr. Rouhi,
    Congratulations on your appointment as Editor-In-Chief of Chemical and Engineering News!
    I have read your first editorial, "Planning for Change". I like your writing style and the content of that editorial. I can see why the ACS Board has chosen you as Editor-In-Chief.
    However, I have yet to see what you stand for. I am looking for a change from Rudy Baum, your predecessor. Mr. Baum used Chemical and Engineering News as a forum for his political views, most of which I disagreed with.
    My two major points of disagreement were his continued advocacy for big government and his insistence that man is responsible for climate change and should dedicate considerable effort to climate control.
Choice of government size is mostly a matter of political persuasion unrelated to education. I would like to see where you come in on that. My point of view is that while government is important, we have been ridiculously progressing to a socialistic society for the last 60 years.
    Climate change opinion is in a different category. While it should be a matter of opinion based upon scientific fact, we have apparently developed a cult of climate change enthusiasts who deal in emotion, probably from a financial point-of-view. I am strongly opposed to the use of public funds for grants to university professors to obtain scientific information to support an emotional position on climate change. Even with the accumulation of scientific data from those grants, I see no evidence emerging to support the theory that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has led to an increase in global temperatures.
    Good luck in your new assignment, and I look forward to seeing whether you and your staff will be able to take a more objective view of science as a realistic part of our society.Dr. Arthur C. Sucsy
4203 96th Street
Lubbock, TX 79423
806-794-1381
asucsy@suddenlink.net

"Group Mindset"

    Last evening I viewed Ben Stein' movie "Expelled".
    For those who may not know Ben Stein, he makes periodic appearances on TV talk shows involving various subjects, such as economics, politics, etc. I judge him to be a person of better than average intelligence, with a good sense of balance and logic.
    For those who do not know the movie "Expelled", it is basically a documentary in which Ben Stein is trying to understand the positions of various international leaders concerning the general controversy on the origin of life. In simpler terms, the question is whether mankind originated from God's creation, as indicated in the Bible, or through evolution as indicated in Darwin's, "Origin of the Species".
    In his search for answers, Ben Stein covers a lot of ground. The movie shows many scenes where he is walking in his business suit and white walking shoes. The persons he interviews are generally of two types. Those who strongly believe in mankind's origin through an evolutionary process and those persons who have not adhered to that belief and had subsequently suffered economic and emotional damage through expulsion from their profession, usually University teaching. I didn't see any interviews with powerful and strong supporters of creationism, as indicated in the Bible.
    Whether the apparent lack of objectivity was intentional or not, it better made the point that the subject matter was an example of "group mindset". The proponents of evolution have been so strong, vociferous, and active in their belief that they have created a cult of similar believers. Such development into groups of believers and unbelievers on any subject seems to be a natural human trait and is not normally objectionable. However, when the believers begin to persecute nonbelievers, an irrationality begins to exist.
    Ben Stein used the Holocaust as an example of how such persecution develops. Prior to World War II, many German intellectuals believed that persons who had been born with physical or mental handicaps were a detriment to society and should be disposed of. Initially, those persons were investigated surgically in the presumed effort to increase society's knowledge of physical and mental handicaps. This later developed to a position of killing the handicapped persons to avoid their reproduction and improve the genetics of the society as a whole. It finally developed into a larger scale position of  eliminating political undesirables, which then resulted in the Holocaust.

    This then caused me to think about other major "group mindsets". I came up with the Spanish Inquisition, wherein members of the Catholic Church pursued and persecuted baptized Christians, who held opinions contrary to the Catholic Church. The French Revolution was essentially a mindset among peasants that the nobility of France must be eliminated. Similarly, the Witch Hunters of Salem needed to persecute and destroy perceived witches .
    Ben Stein's narrative clearly shows that, in modern society, the Darwin evolutionist "mindset group" is clearly persecuting creationists. The danger then in a "group mindset" is the potential to damage or otherwise exploit those who are not a part of that group mindset. Is there no defense against a "group mindset", which in its development arrives at a position of doing significant damage to those persons who are not members of the group? The answer is "yes", and that is to develop a contrary "mindset group", not leaving individuals to shift for themselves, as exemplified in the Darwin evolutionist groups persecution of nonbelievers.
    Developing mindset groups, whether pro or con is not all that difficult. Primarily, it takes leaders who are persuasive in their oratory and writings. It is likely that the present Darwin evolutionary mindset group would have made little progress without Richard Dawkins, who was one of the persons interviewed by Ben Stein. Dawkins is a powerfully persuasive person through his lectures, writings and YouTube presentations. For whatever reason, he is a strongly anti-religious person, which automatically places him in the position of being a Darwin evolutionist. In this controversy between creationists and evolutionists, there are no significant facts. The strong opinions are held primarily on the basis of emotions, which usually result  from many years of previous experiences.
    To offset the evolutionary mindset groups activities, which could theoretically lead to even stronger persecutions of nonbelievers than we have had up to now, it is obvious that a strong creationist mindset group is necessary. The basis of this could easily be religious institutions, which is exactly what Dawkins and his mindset group are fighting against. Unfortunately, the various religious institutions splinter the whole and an obvious coordination is needed. While that could be difficult, it is possible, if a single person of the Dawkins stature can be found.
    From there, I started to think about other possibilities of group mindsets, which might strongly affect my way of life and the society in which I operate. In the present political situation, there is an Obama group mindset which basically says Obama can do no significant wrong, does much good, and should be in governmental control. Conversely there is an anti-Obama group, which we can call a Romney group to counterbalance that. Since they appear to be equally divided in numbers, activity and general forcefulness, the likelihood of one mindset group or another to move to a position of an irrationality is presently remote.
    I thought then of a second presently active mindset group. That is the mindset group on climate change. Unlike the balance of the political mindset groups above, the climate change mindset group has the potential of gross irrational action. Like most mindset groups, the climate change mindset group is based primarily on emotion, with some reality of economics as a background. Present persecution exists indirectly through economic damage to the American public.    
    Up to now, that damage has been small, since it concerns public grants to university professors. But those grants simultaneously make an indirect contribution to the power of the climate change mindset group. The objective of the group is to establish control of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from any energy conversion; e.g. coal to electricity. If the group is ultimately successful in its objective, some millions of Americans will suffer economic hardship. Unfortunately, there is only a minor offsetting mindset group promoting increased fossil energy use. That group needs to develop a much more powerful position to avoid the excesses which would likely be brought about by the climate change group.