To The Deniers Club, LLC--- Take the Challenge!!!

To The Deniers Club, LLC--- Take the Challenge!!!
  • 834
  • 109
  • 13

My Recent Posts

Okay, let me explain a tad. There have been a slew of articles on Climate Change and it's accompanying accusation humanity is at fault. After reading and responding to the most egregious of those articles I found myself being accused of denying science et al.


Author after author was asked what solutions do they proffer to us all? Surprisingly, none ever answered. I gave my usual suggestions like Thorium Salt Reactors, banning glass superstructures corporations love to build in an infantile “one up-man-ship” and mandating all buildings be properly insulated to the climate they are built in and the coup d'état would be moving us away from the boxes we've built around ourselves into Monolithic domed structures that take 4-100 watt light bulbs to heat, can withstand 200 mph winds and are are all but fireproof.


All I got were crickets from the authors! What has become clear they don't want to make the world better. We have the technology “off the shelf” that can transform this nation to “carbon neutral”. It wouldn't bankrupt us or push us back into the Middle Ages.




I don't believe in AGW and never will until legitimate science is presented. Get over it.


Now, almost all of the people I've ever spoken to about our planet and it's future want the same basic things: Clean Air, Water & Food. I've gone so far over the past 12 yrs renting half a duplex here in a suburb of Buffalo, I've spent just over $5000 on upgrades including complete insulation in the basement and attic, installing new doors and storm doors and I'm working on the windows. I track all electrical devices usage, per month and year. I spend more on electricity than most of the nation. Our rates here in WNY are 2nd highest in the nation at 37 cents per kilowatt. And FYI, I actually spent 54 cents per kilowatt because NYSEG has a program to help them do R&D and build renewable sources. Half of all my electric comes from renewables.


Hell, I turn things off, reduce the thermostat and pay attention to the plastics I buy and use. I pay attention to how much gas I use and my mpg. I bought an H.E. washer and dryer and use less of everything I once thought I needed.


As for my challenge? Well, I thought you'd never ask. I challenge anyone and everyone that has been accused of being a member of TDC, LLC to calculate their own carbon footprint. I assume we're a LLC because no one is that foolish not to be, just in case someone wants to sue us for something or other.




Don't worry, most of the work has been done for us already.


Carbon Footprint Calculator



At the above link you can input your own data and then have it calculate your footprint and it gives you a comparison of yours vs the nation and the world.


My yearly footprint stands at 5.88 Metric tons. That's less than 36% of the US and a little more than ½ the rest of the Western World.


The next step is to move the conversation beyond those doomsayers, sycophants & charlatans that want us forced into perpetual poverty or some “carbon trading scam”.  ALL I'd ask is that you share your footprint total and what, if anything, you've done to make your world better and less toxic.


I'd suggest we ignore those articles that want to keep beating a dead horse and let them met silence. We've had 30+ yrs of their “the sky is falling” meme, it's time to move on. It doesn't matter if the planet is warming or not, honest.


You know what does make a difference?


Our own consumption, wastefulness and toxic debris. Things we can fix.



Liberal1 Added Oct 28, 2018 - 8:04pm
yeah... no.
I tried that calculator and I'm not buying some of it's answers. 
For example, I question why flying first class has a 500% greater carbon footprint than flying economy. (I used to fly a lot so we use my miles to upgrade to 1st Class and we fly cross country and then down to the Caribbean 3 - 4 times per year).  So in air travel alone I greatly exceed your numbers.  It doesn't make sense because it is the same damn plane we're on if we are flying 1st or Economy.  
That is offset by a negative carbon footprint for our house!  All of my appliance and tankless water heater are electric.  This is offset by having pretty extensive solar panels that let me sell back electricity (which I put in as a negative number).  It is also foam insulated and has gas filled themo-pane windows so we don't use A/C and only occasionally need electric baseboard heat to keep warm in the winter.    On top of that our yard is xeroscaped and our SUV is a hybrid. 
I also don't drink milk so I accept no responsibilities for cow farts.  LOL
Anyways, I ended up with an 8.94 which, as I said, I think is kind of bogus.
BTW, just for the record, I think "buying" carbon offsets is total BS.  That accomplishes nothing other than shifting the responsibility.   Same goes for the morons who talk about "clean coal".
IMO, what we need to do as a country is provide more SAFE nuclear power and much greater green energy generation to provide clean energy to power manufacturing, homes and vehicles. (thus eliminating the three biggest contributors to CO2). 
Denying that it is actually happening, on the other hand, is simple ignorance and intellectual laziness. 
Gerrilea Added Oct 28, 2018 - 11:20pm
Liberal1--- If you have a better calculator, I can modify the article to include it.  I tried a couple of them and they all seemed to come to similar results.  I too questioned using the "cost" of things like insurance matters at all.  When I pay my bills, it's done electronically.
It makes me wonder what premise are they basing their figures on.  Are economic transactions, in and of themselves, creating carbon?  How many people does my insurance payments employ?
I don't deny that the planet is warming, never have. I will never buy into AGW and it's immaterial whether we agree or not. Let's move forward together on the things we do agree upon.
I'd agree on "safe" nuclear energy, as I've suggested for years, Thorium Salt reactors cannot melt down and their conversion is 90%.  Current LW reactors are only a little over 30% efficient.
All the money we've spent trying to take over the Middle East could have literally paid for solar panels on every American home, retrofitted them with proper insulation AND we'd have enough left over to fix 1/2 of all the bridges and roads in this nation.
FacePalm Added Oct 29, 2018 - 1:54am
i have no need to take the "carbon footprint" challenge; i'm poor(physically, not spiritually) and of necessity keep expenses to a minimum.
OTOH, i've made several suggestions over the years to improve the planet, starting with the inventions of Stanley Meyer, who found a way to break the covalent bonds of H2O MUCH more efficiently than simple electrolysis; youtube vids show his device literally FOAMING as the O2 and H are being released, allegedly via a combination of frequencies which "tickle" the water.  However, do NOT use the resonant frequency of water as one of these frequencies; i remember reading the result of an experiment using the resonant freq. of water on a meter-long graduated cylinder.  When he fired up the generator, the water completely disappeared - then he found the cylinder-shaped hole in his roof...
Back to Meyers, eventually, he was able to invent a way to create the H on demand at the point of combustion, and so obviate the need to store the hydrogen in tanks where it would pose an explosion hazard; when H is combusted, it produces water, and if the O2 is bled off, it will eventually increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, with all the attendant benefits.
But probably the easiest thing to do which would immediately have a beneficial effect is to first acknowledge, then discontinue the spraying of nano-particulates, as revealed in detail at .
Now, i'm not certain exactly why the spraying is happening, but suspect it may have something to do with the still mostly-secret "scalar" weaponry  (see "scalar wars" for more info, if desired.) or with weather modification/control, or for ELF experimentation (which allegedly affects - and EFFECTS - various emotional states in human subjects, anything from ennui to enthusiasm, but also fear, anger, euphoria, etc.).
A great number of inventions have been created which would vastly improve life on this planet, but as their release would threaten existing power companies, oil companies, and all the industries/jobs currently dependent on them, there will be GREAT resistance from such as these, even routine sabotage, as what happened with T. Henry Moray, another great inventor who created a "radiant energy device" which, iirc, generated 50kw continuously and used no fuel to do so.
But there are many, many more people creating along this line, from the now-legendary Pogue carburetor(which allegedly worked by turning gasoline into vapor before it reached the combustion chambers, thereby making 100mpg + a reality), to several inventors of various magnetic motors, and etc.  A websearch of "suppressed inventions" will swiftly turn up the names; doing follow-up by searching the names thus revealed will supply much more info.
Those who are of an inventive frame of mind would find rexresearch to be an invaluable resource; from what i understand, this site was built in response to the USG deliberately classifying energy-related patents(well over 3k worth, now), and slapping the inventors with gag orders to prevent them from ever even SPEAKING about their idea or invention to anyone again, on pain of imprisonment(if not worse) and mostly at the behest of industries which would suffer losses as a result of these patents being granted and implemented.  So what other inventors decided to do was forego the rewards of having a patent and "open source" their docs in the hope that some would pick up what they were putting down, and implement their inventions so as to chip away at the hegemony which is (some say deliberately) trying not to help humanity at all, but to first bleed it dry and then kill it.  
These are some evil people. 
At any rate, the vast compendium of searchable knowledge there - and the patent applications themselves, where available - could inspire many, especially young minds.
Don't know as this would help you with what you came up with, or not, but an acquaintance of mine who works at the Naval Research lab came up with a frictionless bearing based on magnetic repulsion which has been put into practice in some secret gov't experiments, for example.  i don't know exactly how it works, but i would imagine that a round magnet placed on the end of a shaft inserted into a close-tolerance cylinder with another magnet in the hole would be a good place to start, assuming the same at the other end of the shaft, as well.
Then, too, there are the experiments of Bedini, who found a way to recharge batteries by use of the ZP field such that they hold a charge much longer.  Most of the solar pan
FacePalm Added Oct 29, 2018 - 1:56am
panel systems i've read about involve storage of energy in arrays of batteries, then using inverters to convert the DC back into AC for use in those appliances that need it.
IME, most devices these days use bridge rectifiers and filter caps to change the line 120v a/c back into dc for use in most things; one might simply adapt these appliances and supply the dc direct, bypassing the rectifier/filter capacitor assemblies as being unnecessary, for example.
But i notice i'm growing verbose again...
Gerrilea Added Oct 29, 2018 - 2:43am
FacePalm--- Interesting you bring so much to the table to offer us as legitimate solutions.  Part of the design I have includes a magnetic bearing, as chuckle a bit.  The concepts are not hard to discover, just intentionally hidden.  People are "educated" to exclude paths that will allow them to understand, "the whole picture".
I hope you find solutions for your health, your mentioning of D3 (in Katherine Otto's article) was the first clue to better health.  Frequency cancellation and/or enhancement depending on what's hitting you can be truly beneficial.  Everything resonates at its own frequency and it can be manipulated.
That's the key, for the understanding of the spraying they're doing along with what is termed "scalar" technology.
Here's a great lecture that might give you some wonderful insights.
Healing is Voltage
Flying Junior Added Oct 29, 2018 - 3:44am
I was enjoying your little widget.  I got out my Gas & Electric bill and I was right with you.  I was at 460 therms and 3,770 kwh for a household of two people.  So far so good.  I drive a big car, but only 6,250 miles per year.  My wife drives less than 1,500 miles.
However, the so-called secondary footprint, to me, seemed quite unscientific.  Obviously there is no simple way to calculate a carbon footprint from a total $ amount of food and drink, restaurant/hotel bills etc.  I had no idea where the footprint of insurance might have possibly come from.  The amount of commuting to earn enough money to pay for it?  I'm semi-retired.  My commute is ten miles three times a week.
Like so much else, it's just bubble gum bullshit.  I wish it had been an accurate measure.  Once you start holding a person accountable for everything they buy...  Well it gets a little bit nuts.  Do I get credit for buying only Fords?  I think the motor of the wife's car was built in Canada.  I only put down $4,000/year for vehicles and $50/year for televisions, $100/year for computers.  I think I put $1800/year for insurance.  My secondary footprint completely dwarfed that of my car and house by better than a factor of two.
Still, I enjoyed it.
Neil Lock Added Oct 29, 2018 - 4:19am
Thank you, Gerrilea.
I said very clearly, in my own recent article on the subject, what I deny and what I do not deny. I'm right with you when you say, of the alarmist side: "What has become clear they don't want to make the world better." The whole hoo-hah is no more than excuse for higher taxes, more taxes, new taxes, and taxes that get higher and higher as they go. It's the biggest scam in human history.
I don't care about my "carbon footprint," because as far as I'm aware more CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to have good effects, not bad ones. I do care about how much real pollution I produce, for example through driving my car. But as I work it out, the social cost of driving even big cars is way less than the benefits to drivers (and, even more to the point, also less than the taxes drivers are already forced to pay).
I think people ought to be calculating their "political footprint" - that is, the cost to other people of the political policies they promote, support and vote for. That would show up who really cares about others and who doesn't.
Lindsay Wheeler Added Oct 29, 2018 - 4:22am
Wait a minute---I'm hearing a volcano blowing somewhere---OOpps, can't stop it. Volcanos are unstoppable. Whatever man attempts will be undone by just one volcano. Wait for Yellowstone to blow---that will be something!
opher goodwin Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:20am
Gerri - I like what you are saying. We should all be reducing the amount of CO2 we put in the air. It makes great sense. Insulate, build properties to high standards and reduce our energy needs.
Much progress has been made in this direction - most of our machines are much more energy efficient than they used to be. That's good for us and good for the environment.
Moving to sustainable renewable energy is the other half. It is not expensive. These technologies have become much more cost effective and will not damage the economy.
opher goodwin Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:22am
Lindsay - There is a problem that is exacerbated by Greenhouse gasses.
We can't do anything about volcanoes but we can do things about what we do. If there is a natural disaster - so be it - we are fucked. If it is a disaster we cause ourselves, and we're supposed to be intelligent, then more fool us!
A. Jones Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:26am
It wouldn't bankrupt us . . .
LOL! Show is your numbers. And source them; don't just invent them as "pro forma" hypotheticals.
A. Jones Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:36am
Aside from the fact that "carbon neutral" is nonsense, those who are concerned about it should rejoice that the U.S. has reduced it's carbon-footprint significantly because of all the natural gas it has pumped out of the ground by means of fracking.
Conversely, the European welfare states of Germany, Spain, and Denmark have significantly increased their carbon footprints precisely because they are wasting natural resources by developing so-called "green technologies" like wind turbines. Not only are wind turbines not "carbon neutral" in their highly polluting manufacturing cycle, but they are so inefficient they simply cannot supply enough electricity for "Peak Demand", and for one very good reason: when the wind stops blowing, the wind turbines stop generating. Period.
A. Jones Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:37am
Show is your numbers
Of course that should read, "Show us your numbers."
Flying Junior Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:56am
A. Jones,
What difference could it make?  Nobody knows waht you are talking about.
Steel Breeze Added Oct 29, 2018 - 7:40am
my ol pickup only gets11mpg,but, it brings home the beer.......fair trade...
Dino Manalis Added Oct 29, 2018 - 8:20am
 We know we impact our environment, we should take good care of it!
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 29, 2018 - 9:19am
The obvious thing is that you have accepted the premise of his statement if you answer the question.  First of all I have answered complaint that we present no facts.  Ice core data presents facts that are a thousand orders of magnitude longer then the 30 years that the models have been predicting climate change.  
Please explain why the conclusion has changed over the years for global cooling to global heating to now 'wait to see what happens because we can not guess well enough.   Then just call this bad, we get climate change.'   An idiot if he thinks about it knows that 'climate change' never stops from the time that dust and rocks floating round in space combined to create the planet.   
I am waiting to get a prediction that matches the data.  You never seem to present that.   I see last weeks inteview on Fox "Life Liberty and Levin" where he had on an expert that has been the 'skunk' in those conferences on 'climate change.'   He told us that their are about 32 programs to predict climate in the future.  All are paid for by nations or groups that promote your climate change except the one started I assume by the USSR and now is Russia.   Of the 32 only the Russian one actually agrees with the data.   He went on to say that the models predict the upper atmosphere temperature much much hotter then the data collected by weather balloons.  And that the effect on the model is to miss calculate the effect of water vapor on the earth temperature.   
So why hasn't the models been corrected and they are not changed for years?  MONEY, you know Al Gore has all those carbon credits.  Simply put there is money in those hills in carbon credits, the creation of technology that the governments of the world take tax dollars to purchase.  Their is political power in climate change.
I challenge you to show that money is not being made and that politicians do not get power.   An example is the Obama EPA due to a court decision (modern liberal/ progressive/ socialist) said that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.  That means that the EPA can regulated it.  So we now have the air regulated by the government that is significant political power.   
Show me I am wrong with facts.    I call on you to first meet my challenge because yours hangs on it  not the other way around!
Gerrilea Added Oct 29, 2018 - 11:21am
Flying J, Neil L, Opher G, & Dino M--- Despite the fact we do not agree on the reasons for the planet warming, it doesn't negate our ability to produce less toxic waste and have better homes, cars and workplaces.  Ones that are energy efficient and cleaner.
Thanks for at least agreeing with these things, its not hard to buy cloth shopping bags and take them with you when you go to the store or leave a couple in your trunk.  Stupid little details that can change the world, for the better.
As for CO2, I personally would love for the planet to get warmer, really.  We'd use less and less energy, especially in the winter. 
Thomas S--- I'm truly not sure what you're saying or referencing, when you repeatedly claim:
"You never seem to present that."
Please re-read my article, I don't care about the causes for our climate changing, either cooler or warmer.  Let's just stop the arguing and move on.  How about all those "climate scientists" get together and create better homes, better power production and products that can be mass produced without toxic waste.
A Jones--- Here's my calculations based on the average square foot home in the US which stands at 2700 square feet.
With about 136 million dwellings, with 77 million individual homes and 43 million renters in multiple dwellings, like me.
From my own personal experience of putting fiberglass insulation in this duplex it cost my a little over $1500, including the basement and more importantly around the perimeter.
In single family dwellings it would cost $150 Billion.  77 million times 1500.  Multiple dwellings is almost impossible to calculate.  Size, location and # of units vary.
So, let's keep it to single family homes, for now.
As for solar or geothermal, they are a tad more expensive and since I do not own this house, I'd never spend the money. But here's a helper's guide for costs associated with solar installation.
They estimate the cheapest way out is around $5000 and the average home done by a contractor is around $20,000.  It depends on your own desires and set-up.
If we go cheap on solar, @ $5000 per dwelling, total cost it's $385 billion. If we go average, total cost is $1.54 trillion.
(77 million times the cheapest and the average gives us a ballpark figure)
Gerrilea Added Oct 29, 2018 - 11:42am
A. Jones--- (continued)
If we calculate all the money we've spent on/in the Middle East, trying to control it all JUST since 2001, were at $4.79 TRILLION, not including costs for wounded vet's, ongoing operations, etc.  We get closer to $6 TRILLION when all the costs are added up.
Simple math gives us the following:
Cheap solar with insulation = $535 billion.
Average solar with insulation = $1.69 trillion.
Yes, we could, in less than 10 yrs, become energy independent and we wouldn't need the resource wars we've been in.
Now if we take the $6 trillion and subtract the high end total above we're left with $431 TRILLION for roads and bridges. Now a few years ago, it was estimated that it would cost $10 trillion to rebuild our roads and bridges, that number was double that actual costs, as per our Civil Engineers.
They estimate it at $4.6 trillion, so...we're almost at zero.
See how easy that was?
Gerrilea Added Oct 29, 2018 - 11:43am
A. Jones--- That final $431 trillion should have been $4.31 trillion...ugh.
TreeParty Added Oct 29, 2018 - 12:42pm
Thomas Sutrina - Is that you, Vladimir? Your writing smacks of English as a Second Language, and your shout-out to a Russian model of increasing global temperature being the only accurate one is more than a bit suspicious in this context.
As to the underlying issue of global warming, here are my two cents:
First, you cannot solve a problem that you do not understand or deny the existence of. Gerrilea claims that "I don't deny that the planet is warming, never have"; but then at the same time insists that "I don't believe in AGW and never will until legitimate science is presented." Then, further down, Gerrilea blithely proclaims that
"It doesn't matter if the planet is warming or not, honest", and "As for CO2, I personally would love for the planet to get warmer, really.  We'd use less and less energy, especially in the winter."
These are the musings of a clueless individual. If the planet is incontrovertibly warming, and the warming is caused by something other than human activities, why is Gerrilea obsessed with carbon footprint!? If Gerrilea would "really love" for the planet to get warmer, why not advocate for MORE carbon emissions?!
It seems to me that the first step in MOVING THE CONVERSATION FORWARD is for folks like Gerrilea to admit that all this rapid global warming actually IS an environmental threat. Do we have a problem or not, Gerrilea?!
Of course, "legitimate science" is telling us every day that it is human activities that are causing global warming, including deforestation and the massive emissions of greenhouse gases. And all that excess of CO2 in the atmosphere is ALSO causing ocean acidification, another dangerous environmental threat. 
Gerrilea admits that the planet is warming (duh!!), and cannot credibly explain the warming, but insists that the solid explanation provided by the climate science community is unbelievably wrong. Oh, but we should still reduce our carbon footprint, even though Gerrilea would see no problem with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere if it were causing the warming. All I can say is, what kind of special stupid is going on there?!
So if we proceed on the basis that AGW IS actually a big problem for our civilization, we really should reduce our carbon footprint; agreed. By the way, I have proven to Gerrilea that my carbon footprint is WAY negative, based on 5 acres of trees that I am growing to sequester whatever CO2 I do emit, but he(?) has branded me a "doomsayer, sycophant, or a charlatan." (I kind of resent that, but that is a separate discussion...) Let's just stipulate right now that part of the "solution" to AGW has to be reforestation, and I am walking the walk myself. Gerrilea may brag about a relatively small carbon footprint, but his is MASSIVE compared to mine; please note that I am not the one bragging here...
So, number one "solution"; prohibit deforestation and encourage reforestation wherever practicable. Number two solution is cap and trade regimes where the net amount of CO2 emissions are capped and the "free market" determines emission patterns; else a "carbon tax" that captures some of the externality costs up front and discourages growth of CO2 emissions. Number three solution is a "Marshall Plan for Renewable Energy", a full-court press to emplace low-carbon, renewable energy solutions in all sectors of the economy. Number four solution is a very active international program of family planning to try to limit population growth. Number five solution: reduce your consumption of meat. Meat is a very energy intensive luxury compared to a vegetable-based diet. Number six solution is, if you live in a suburban neighborhood, grow your own food! It is a healthy activity and reduces your carbon footprint.
 Now I will stop here and point out to Gerrilea that I AM PROPOSING THESE SOLUTIONS! Right here and right now. These actions may not entirely prevent AGW going forward, but you CANNOT TRUTHFULLY  CLAIM that the AGW "alarmists" are not proposing solutions (to a problem that you do not even admit exists!) In fact, it is the denial of folks like you that is the biggest impediment to "solving the problem". I am happy to discuss "solutions" all day long, as long as the participants to the discussion of "solutions" agree that there is a problem that requires a "solution" - not sure I see that on your part, Gerrilea…..
TreeParty Added Oct 29, 2018 - 12:59pm
Liberal1 - "Denying that it is actually happening, on the other hand, is simple ignorance and intellectual laziness."  
Thank you, oh proud Republican, for that valuable insight. 
A couple of points:
1) Buying carbon offsets is NOT "total B.S". If the point is to reduce your carbon footprint, if you can arrange to sequester more CO2 than you emit, how is that B.S.?! You're not making sense right there..
2) I notice that you highlighted the word SAFE in your proposal of more nuclear power. What does that mean, as opposed to say merely proposing "more" nuclear power? Nuclear power is inherently "unsafe" in that it concentrates a toxic material that is very dispersed in nature. Nuclear power as it is presently implemented is VERY unsafe, at least as far as the spent fuel is concerned. And, as presently practiced, it is NOT renewable. As an AGW "alarmist", I am open to considering low-carbon solutions that make sense, but have always been resistant to considering a technology that I consider dangerous and finitely non-renewable. What can you say that would obviate these concerns?
Liberal1 Added Oct 29, 2018 - 1:20pm
TreeParty, Let me start out saying that I DO believe that climate change is man made.  This has been proven time and again by credible experts in the field and by reams of empirical evidence.  To deny it takes willful ignorance.
That said, even though I certainly approve of reforestation, doing so in the northern hemisphere comes with it's own risks (I live in California and forest fires have added more C02, heat and "carbon" to the atmosphere than all of the "walking hamburger" in the world.
I also STRONGLY disagree regarding cap and trade regimes.  All that accomplishes is deferring rich people's "carbon footprint" to some poor person.  IMO, strong international agreements (and enforcement of those agreements, to make real reductions is what is necessary.  The Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol would have been a good start, but we (as a country) jacked both of those up so much they are now meaningless.
Anyways, I'm in agreement with Gerrilea.  Once we get our noses out of damn near every country in the world and use that money to get our own house in order we can work to get everyone else in line.  Till then, we are the hugest part of the problem. (and the next idiot who brings up volcanoes needs to STFU because the subject is the human contribution to climate change.)
Gerrilea Added Oct 29, 2018 - 1:38pm
Tree Party-- So you cannot stop with the personal attacks? Hon, the issue of "global climate change" is toxic to legitimate public discourse. 
The premise that most want clean air, water and food must be attained by our own personal habits and choices.  Less toxic chemicals in cups, liquid container liners, metal can liners, clothing detergent, etc CONTRIBUTES so many things into our environment that effects so many species, including killing the bees.
There is nothing that has been presented by any of you soothsayers that will make me believe that AGW is even remotely real or dire.  
You have not proven anything that means squat.  Your alleged "negative carbon footprint" doesn't stop you from creating toxic wastes.  You rationalize your "carbon trading" as legitimate and I've already shown you what the scam it is.
I don't need to "understand" your fear-porn-for-profit scam to open up and move the discussion forward to real obtainable results that will give us CLEAN AIR, WATER & FOOD.
When the planet warms, better for life.  If it's cooler, not so much.
Your list of solutions are not productive or necessary with the exception of reforestation.  You wish to implement worldwide quotas on how many people there are and how we all live...IT AIN'T EVER GONNA HAPPEN!  The only system that could even remotely come close would be what the Chinese have been doing. 
My desire for including the carbon footprint calculator was to establish some baselines with those of us whom do not believe in AGW and see where we all currently stand.  How bad are we really doing?  EVEN THOUGH we don't believe you.
And just in case you were wondering, if humanity stopped all CO2 emissions immediately, the planet will still warm by 4* F.  We're coming out of a damn ice age and THE SUN, our orbit around said and our tilt are the primary drivers of climate change.
Is an Ice Age Coming PBS Science Studios
Enough of debunking you! 
TreeParty Added Oct 29, 2018 - 1:46pm
OK; AGW is real, of course. Thanks for playing with a full deck. And reforestation is a no-brainer, natch. 
I notice with some disappointment that you did not respond to my two points about carbon offsets and "safe" nuclear power. Maybe you will....
Of course, strong international agreements are necessary, natch. But at some point, we (the global "we") HAVE TO "cap" emissions; and once capped, let the "trading" ensue. Making such a regime punitive on "poorer" people only results from a dearth of imagination, IMO. 
The question I have for a sane person such as yourself is, how can you be in agreement with Gerrilea?!?! That person is so deluded it is just ineffably sad! HaHaHa ; I think he(?) had his tonsils removed by a proctologist!! Thanks for that lol....
P.S. Yeah, anyone that brings up volcanoes should be shunned from intelligent conversation. And I would add:
Warming on Mars
"The climate is always changing"
Ice age predicted in the 70's
Liberal1 Added Oct 29, 2018 - 2:14pm
TreeParty, I thought I had addressed those above, but I'll expand on them if you prefer:
"Safe" nuclear energy is created by using denatured molten salt reactors which will not produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium and which only require recharging every 30 years.  They are safe from melt down and the amount of radioactive waste they produce is minuscule compared to conventional reactors.  They also are very efficient producers of electricity compared to any other means.  As for disposal of the radioactive waste, I prefer glass encapsulation and burial to blowing it out of a smokestack into the atmosphere, don't you?
As to Cap and Trade, I don't have any issues with the "cap" part.  I do with the trade part, however.  If the trade were solely performed on an individual basis (i.e. "if you created it YOU offset it with something") vs. "buying" offsets and simply moving the responsibility to someone else, then I'd be for it, but that is not the case for the rich or for corporations.
Re-reading my comment about reforestation, I want to say that some managed reforestation is the US & Canada would be good, but where it is truly needed is in places like South America where untold number of acres of rain forest are destroyed every year.  This Slash & Burn-ing not only created a huge amount of CO2 & particulate, but removes one of the largest CO2 "sinks" of the planet.
John Howard Added Oct 29, 2018 - 4:44pm
I will never measure my carbon footprint since I consider the entire premise of CO2 causing global warming to be an absurd myth whose promotion is funded by government, which also offers the solution:  control of all energy use and taxes (carbon credits) on everything and everyone.  
CO2 is plant food, not pollution.  There is solid evidence that the atmosphere has more CO2 in it and that the planet is growing greener as a result.  Very scary, oh my!  But there is no evidence that global temperatures are rising.  I wish they were.    
TreeParty Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:14pm
John Howard -  "no evidence that global temperatures are rising"?!?! You're joking, right?!?! There is only evidence that global temperatures are rising!
Start with 50 years of temperature measurements:
Move on to loss of ice masses around the globe due to melting ice because of global warming. Here is documented 40 years of Arctic sea ice loss:
resulting in sea level rise:
"Global sea level rise has two major causes:

the expansion of ocean water as it warms.
increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets."

And so on and so on. Wow; almost nobody still thinks the planet is not warming. AGW "denial" is not focused on whether the observed warming is caused by human activity, and whether it is benign or malign...
John Howard Added Oct 29, 2018 - 5:46pm
Sending me off to read endless links that confirm your beliefs while claiming there are no links confirming the opposite only tells me that you aren't reading both sides of the debate.  I am.
I don't debate by sending links.  I am convinced that the claims of global warming are not backed by evidence since there is no way to measure the temperature of the earth accurately enough to verify the warmist claims.  The margin of error is far larger than the claimed warming.
Liberal1 Added Oct 29, 2018 - 6:32pm
"CO2 is plant food, not pollution.  There is solid evidence that the atmosphere has more CO2 in it and that the planet is growing greener as a result. "
John Howard, and there is also solid evidence that too much CO2 has a negative effect on plants.
Plants Choke on too Much Carbon
Of course you won't believe that either, so carry on spreading your type of manure that isn't plant food.
A. Jones Added Oct 29, 2018 - 7:32pm
and there is also solid evidence that too much CO2 has a negative effect on plants.
Just as there is solid evidence that too much oxygen has a negative effect on humans. So what.
We are a long, long way from "too much CO2", which is seen in computer models of climate change that assume nothing but "positive feedback" in the atmosphere. There is zero empirical evidence for that. IT'S A COMPUTER MODEL ONLY.
CO2 is a very small fraction of the atmosphere; the increase we've seen in CO2 (probably evaporated from the oceans as they warm due to solar activity [or inactivity, as the case may be]) has had nothing but a positive effect on plants, including agricultural crops. The phenomenon is called "the greening of the Earth"; viz.,:
"We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (Leaf Area Index, or greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%)."
FacePalm Added Oct 29, 2018 - 8:28pm
This site has a semi-unique feature.
If you look in the toolbar above the post, just to the R of the U, you'll see a symbol leaning to the right that looks like a couple/three links in a chain.
If you, for example, highlight the link you would like people to follow(or put a shorter word there and highlight it), then click the aforementioned button, you'll get a dropdown menu which will have a place for you to put the URL, which i usually do via the copy/paste method.  When you hit "enter," it will form a clickable link in your post.
i understand that people can copy'n'paste the URL you already put in your post, but IME, people are lazy and won't bother.  Make it easy for 'em.
While i think most would generally acknowledge that you care about this planet and what we'll leave for our posterity, it seems to me that you prefer the argumentation to implementing solutions. 
My parents would often listen to my utopian visions, and say "You may not be able to change the world, but you CAN change your little corner of it," or as Gandhi once said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world."
Or perhaps as Missourians would say, "Show me."
Liberal1 Added Oct 29, 2018 - 8:44pm
A. Jones, you didn't even bother to read that article before going on your rant, did you?
If you would have you'd realize just how stupid your comment makes you sound.
Here.  Want to try again?
Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO2
TreeParty Added Oct 29, 2018 - 10:17pm
John Howard - These are not "endless links"; these are graphs of actual data in the main. Your claim of "no evidence that global temperatures are rising" is laughable wrong, and unsupportable. Go ahead; prove me wrong! Since I have provided incontrovertible evidence that "global temperatures are rising", what evidence do YOU have to counter these facts?! You "don't debate by sending links"; does that mean the same thing as "you don't have any evidence to support your claims"? What about rising sea levels? What about
TreeParty Added Oct 29, 2018 - 10:18pm
what about melting ice masses? Do you dispute these facts?
John Howard Added Oct 29, 2018 - 10:46pm
Liberal1 is no doubt right - you can sense his penetrating wisdom from his condescending insults.  It is going to be terrible news that CO2 does not enhance plant growth to all those commercial greenhouse growers who pump CO2 into their greenhouses.  They are so dumb.
However, CO2 has the studies - even a little video down low on their home page.  Plant growth is dramatically enhanced by the addition of CO2 up until about 1200-1300ppm.  Our atmosphere is currently about 406ppm.  If tripled, we'd see even more benefits than we are seeing already.
John Howard Added Oct 29, 2018 - 11:09pm
As I wrote above,
"I am convinced that the claims of global warming are not backed by evidence since there is no way to measure the temperature of the earth accurately enough to verify the warmist claims.  The margin of error is far larger than the claimed warming."
Now you can show me "data" all day long and I will tell you repeatedly that your data is from highly inaccurate thermometers suitable for measuring temperatures accurately enough for farmers and pilots interested in local temperatures, but that your thermometers are not distributed evenly over the Earth's surface.  They are clustered over land - mainly urban areas - in the west, in the northern hemisphere.  Nor are they accurate to fractions of a degree necessary for the declaration that the Earth is warming by fractions of a degree.  Nor are they well maintained or monitored.  They were never intended for a careful scientific study.  There is an entire branch of climate science now devoted to looking at how this "data" is collected and what they are finding is best described as a scientific scandal.  You know that most of the "data" you could produce is from computer studies, not reality.
You have no way to know what the temperature of the Earth is.  No one does.  Sea levels have been rising for many centuries and continue to do so at the same gradual rate as always.  Polar bears are doing fine.  Ice is melting in some places in some years and growing in other places in other years.  There is no trend.  There are no increases in storm numbers or severity. 
So yes, to answer your question, I do dispute your "facts".   
Liberal1 Added Oct 29, 2018 - 11:32pm
John Howard, I fixed your comment to be more factual:
"I am convinced that the claims of global warming are not backed by evidence that I am willing to admit is valid because it would knock the pins out from under my climate change denial."
Ken Added Oct 29, 2018 - 11:43pm
Gerri - I haven't responded here yet because I don't have good answers - I do like some of the thoughtful solutions presented to just being responsible people whether we agree with the cause or not.
Most of those who think "electric cars" for example are "the answer" fail to consider that while cars may have low carbon output, they ignore the fact they need electricity which is estimated to create a larger carbon footprint than the current fuel efficient cars of today, so if everyone switches to electric cars, it will be an even bigger problem  something known as "unintended consequences" although it should have been completely foreseeable, since the degrowther environmentalists won't allow for nuclear or other cleaner energy.
I thought you might appreciate an alternative perspective, however.  This was a week ago and I just watched it today, been catching up on some TV stuff I recorded, and while this doesn't "solve" any climate change "problems"  It might put a little more perspective on the issue itself than those fervently religious global warming folks
Gerrilea Added Oct 30, 2018 - 1:05am
Tree P--- Your personal attacks do nothing to move the conversation forward.  You won't win the minds of others when you call them all idiots.  Hon, you're an anonymous person on the interwebs with nothing to establish your existence outside of this blogosphere.   You've provided no evidence that the planet is warming more now than it has in the past OR that humanity is the cause.
I have, however, provided evidence that presents why I don't believe the propaganda.
John Howard has presented valid critiques and I'd only add that we had almost 5,000 temperature stations all over the US and now we have 1500.  And every time we took more down, the higher the temperatures allegedly got.  It took expose after expose to reveal to us the ones left "on" were placed next to exhaust fans for hospitals or commercial industries...intentionally misplaced which gave rise to the alleged "urban heat island".
It was after those exposes that I started tracking the temps here in Buffalo over the past 12+ yrs in my own spreadsheets.  I have my own data points that establish it's not getting warming but colder.  Regional patterns over time ARE the climate.  It was so continuously cold that Niagara Falls froze over for the first time in 140+ yrs.
As FacePalm has pointed out, clearly all you wish to do is argue over meaningless details that do nothing to bring us close to a common goal.
Isn't that goal, "to make the world better"?
Liberal1 has tried to find common ground and it's great to have his/her input.  We can work out the details of where we plant all the trees, as long as we plant them.  The failure of California to maintain the forests they had is what has brought about all those wildfires in recent years.  They could have spent a few billion on desalination infrastructure but failed when they could have and should have.
Ken, thank you for the link, I'm listening to it as I respond here tonight.  The turning point in this saga was the Clean Air Act based on false data and false assumptions with false conclusions.  Acid Rain wasn't caused by smokestacks but land use.
As for the electric cars with batteries, that's a new disaster in the making.  Where are the used batteries going?
Jim Stoner Added Oct 30, 2018 - 3:20am
OK, this is not my conversation in that I am not a denier, but I am drawn to the hottest topic like a moth to incandescent light.  I will say that I agree with Liberal1 that carbon offsets are basically about assuaging privilege guilt and not a real solution.  I would add, though, that if you can donate money that will truly provide reforestation in the Amazon and Indonesia, you should do it, whatever your footprint.   I am not so convinced about nuclear energy, though--too many screw-ups and near screw-ups so far. 
I do think there's a fair chance there may be technological means to offset human-driven climate change, so research should continue on the more promising ideas, and in the meantime try to do less damage.   
Gerrilea, I don't know where you got that notion about what's killing the bees, but it's looking very much like some of the newer pesticides are to blame.  Which isn't really that surprising, if you consider that one person's "valuable insect" might be someone else's "pest".  It's kind of like chemotherapy or herbicide--it just kills, in this case, bugs. 
Flying Junior Added Oct 30, 2018 - 3:27am
It's not completely useless talking to climate science deniers.  You have stimulated some new thinking in me.  When I learned about the Keeling Curve and greenhouse gases in the 1990s from UCTV many programs actually reflected cutting edge science and actual lectures given on UC campuses.  Twenty years later, now that this is accepted scientific theory, it has been codified and organized for educational purposes.  Simply by returning to my beloved Scripps Institution of Oceanography I was able to find a new resource.
      Earthguide a part of the Geosciences Research Division at
                        Scripps Institution of Oceanography
It's written at an undergraduate level which anyone should be able to understand if they take the time to study.  I might use this resource to author a simple guide to the greenhouse effect on Earth.  Everybody knows that water helps to stabilize temperature.  Without the World's oceans our temperatures would fluctuate wildly every 24 hours.  What is more, most people understand that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas.  A simple example might be how coastal fog helps to prevent extreme low overnight temperatures.  A few dozen miles inland in a clear clime night time temperatures might be as much as thirty degrees colder than during the day.  The clouds are like a blanket.
I hear two things coming from the more serious activists opposing the climate science, "hoax."  The first is that water vapor is much more prevalent than CO2 in our atmosphere and has a much more profound effect on climate.  Nothing to really argue there.  If it were not for the oceans, the clouds, the rain, the lakes, rivers and streams as well as their infinitely varied interactions with the Sun, Earth would not be the green planet we know and love.  There is a simple argument to refute this.  Firstly CO2 is essential to the greenhouse effect that makes the Earth a nice place to live.  I will have to learn more about that.  Secondly the cycle of water vapor in the atmosphere is only about ten days before it returns to Earth in precipitation.  Unlike water vapor CO2 is a gas that builds up in the atmosphere.  Still I never really thought about 400 ppm translating into 0.04%.  I have you guys to thank for that.
I learned something else really cool.  The heat radiation that is received by the Earth from the Sun every day must be equal to the amount of heat that the Earth radiates back into space.  Whaaa?  Yeah, how does that make sense?  If these liberal scientists in their million dollar homes are trying to prove that climate change is a serious problem, why would they say that?  The surprisingly simple answer is that the average temperature of the Earth as seen from space is about -18 degrees Celsius or 0 degrees Fahrenheit.  That is true because we live at the very bottom of the atmosphere.  This would be the average temperature of the entire atmosphere.  The same rule of physics would likely apply to the Moon and other celestial bodies. 
Due to the presence of certain greenhouse gases that trap heat, like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and CFCs, the atmosphere retains the sun's radiation and warms up the planet. By increasing the abundance of these gases in the atmosphere, humankind is increasing the overall warming of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere, a process called "global warming."
Great stuff, right?  Real science is a great deal more exciting than fake science with a political agenda.  As curious creatures, accurate scientific knowledge brings us far more pleasure and satisfaction than junk science.
Flying Junior Added Oct 30, 2018 - 3:45am
Safe Nuclear Power = Clean Coal = Oxymoron
I won't begrudge the Navy their nuclear powered submarines.  I have no problem with nuclear power catapulting spacecraft far beyond our Solar System.  But no.  Not here on Earth.  Not in our cities and lands.  Dangers and necessary precautions far exceed any value this technology has to solve our energy problems.
Apparently Dick Cheney did not share my beliefs when he sold this technology to India.
Susitna Added Oct 30, 2018 - 5:24am
I am amazed at how much I didn't know. And now that I know a lot about CO2, thanks to you guys, we should switch to the main perpetrator: The sun! Why don't we talk about the sun? Maybe because we cannot impose taxes or own it? If Rockefellers could, they would sell a piece of the sun to China. The truth is that the sun builds every single cloud, every single drain drop and every single hurricane. The sun will shine as long as it wants and we have zero control over it. Well, don't get me wrong as I don't want to pollute the environment or produce too much CO2 in which case any single volcano will spoil my plans of keeping the "CO2 numbers" reasonable low. Yes, the famous sun that causes sunburn and forces us to use Factor 50 and then we jump into the ocean and pollute it. All of you are slightly right, very right, incredibly right and I may be completely wrong.
If it looks like a global warming business, it is a global warming business.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 30, 2018 - 8:46am
How we got this green planet in the first place when man was not even present.
"If by nature we mean Earth, the Earth does not maintain a balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide (or monoxide for that matter). The basic theory is that virtually all oxygen made by the Sun's predecessor and released in the supernova of 5 billion years ago was chemically bound. That means it was in the forms of carbon oxides, water, sulphur oxides, silicon dioxide (rock), and other metallic oxides. We still do not find any free oxygen on any planet, comet, or asteroid but there is plenty of ice and carbon dioxide and of course there is an excess of hydrogen and methane. So if it was up to stars and planets it would have been a one-sided balance in favor of the oxides.
What made all the free oxygen on Earth is the little magic of the universe called life and in particular green plants. When Earth condensed its oceans, little microscopic green plants, algae, planktons, and the like developed that do not need any oxygen but thrive on the CO2 as food. They actually eat carbon dioxide, use the sunlight and make O2 as their exhaust. The more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the faster these plants multiply. Later plant life on land developed and accelerated the oxygen formation process. The entire land on Earth was covered by plants competing for carbon dioxide. If the animals did not come about the only way balance restores is by cyclic fire storms caused by nature that burns large forests and generates atmospheric CO2. With animals and non-green plants added, there is a competing user for oxygen and a generator for CO2. But overall animals with the exception of the post-industrial man have not played a major role in the balance. It is basically dominated by cyclic growth and diminishing of green plants and records are preserved in layers of the arctic ice."
ref: Mehran Moalem, worked at University of California, Berkeley Apr 21, 2016.
Dr Mehran Moalem doesn't suggest man's effect but does put together the big player, plants and the need to actually have in a cycle the creation of CO2.
All life ends if CO2 is not in the atmosphere. So the Judge that defines CO2 as a pollutent is an idiot and the EPA should not be regulation CO2.
Gerrilea Added Oct 30, 2018 - 11:04am
Flying J--- I'm glad you're understanding better.  The main driver of Climate is the Sun, which creates clouds which create our atmosphere, which keeps us from becoming a big ball of ice.
As the link to the PBS Science Video I presented above states, "We may have dodged another ice age because of our emissions."  Their conclusions, near the very end, I felt we're added for PC's reasons and not actual science but that video explains how our climate goes from warm to cold in cycles of 100,000 yrs. WHICH IS PROVEN BY THE CORE SAMPLES IN ICE & SEDIMENT. That cycle changed and they don't know why, still to this day.  They "cycle" was closer to 42,000 years previously, if I recall correctly.
As for the Safe Nuclear, I've understood that as the Thorium Salt Reactors, I never paid too much attention to Cheney, except to understand that he & Bush should have been charged with crimes against humanity.
Jim Stoner--- The Neonicotinoids and phosphates and gut virus and on and on have all been blamed for the bees dying.  Any way it's sliced, we're killing them.  There was an old documentary that established how radar at airports was disrupting ladybugs and aphids.  I suspect they don't want us to look at WiFi and the 5G they're rolling out, billions are a stake. If people understood what they were doing to themselves, their children and their community, maybe they wouldn't buy those slave created I-phones.
Susitna Added Oct 30, 2018 - 11:31am
To Sunshine Kid: I just loooooove your comments. I asked two scientists to provide a temperature curve and CO2-values before 1920 until today and guess what: No answer!
John Howard Added Oct 30, 2018 - 11:41am
Liberal1,  I fixed your comment: 
"Snide beats science.  Everybody knows that!"
Ken Added Oct 30, 2018 - 11:49am
What makes me laugh is going to the south pole to try and observe the Northern  Hemisphere!
What makes me laugh is going to the south pole to observe the Northern Hemisphere!  Sounds like the kind of science Opher does
TreeParty Added Oct 30, 2018 - 1:23pm
Gerrilea wrote:
"It was after those exposes that I started tracking the temps here in Buffalo over the past 12+ yrs in my own spreadsheets.  I have my own data points that establish it's not getting warming but colder. "
Better check your spreadsheet, doofus:
It says here that in New York state:
"The annual average temperature statewide has risen about 2.4°F since 1970, with winter warming exceeding 4.4°F."
"Annual average temperatures have increased in all regions of the state."
Wow, you really can't get anything right!
Gerrilea Added Oct 30, 2018 - 2:07pm
TreeParty--- Stop with the personal insults or I will delete your comments.  Be respectful or don't participate.
Your link is propaganda.  Here's a little more accurate one.
Hottest recorded temp in NYS, Troy, NY in Jan 27th, 1926 @107*.
Coldest recorded temp in NYS, Old Forge, NY in Fed 18th, 1979 @-52*
Here's another one:
"The climate of New York State is broadly representative of the humid continental type, which prevails in the northeastern United States, but its diversity is not usually encountered within an
area of comparable size.
The geographical position of the State and the usual course of air masses, governed by the large-scale patterns of atmospheric circulation, provide general climatic controls. Differences in latitude, character of the topography and proximity to large bodies of water have pronounced effects on the climate."
Here's one more, despite the false premise and lack of science data:
"Despite an undeniable overall year-round warming trend, winters in North America and Europe have trended cooler over the past quarter-century."
So, over the pat 25 years, winters are getting longer and colder BUT the planet is warming.
What drugs must one do to see the world in such a warped fashion?
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 30, 2018 - 3:18pm
All this stuff about what MAN has done to the climate.  Consider that the 'little ice age' of the early 1800's was caused by three volcanoes in about a decade.   Further consider that the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in the Dutch East Indies  resulted in the loss of two summers in the northern hemisphere.   We are talking about an events that may last a few months.     
WB we are not even near the same order of magnitude as these natural events that guess what, man is the victim of these volcanoes.   
Also consider the Medieval Warm Epoch. Dr. Lamb thought that this epoch was at its maximum between 1000 AD–1300 AD, and that it peaked in the 11th Century. (the settling of Iceland and Greenland and the Viking reaching North America)   In 2009, scientists showed that the cause of warming in Europe and cooling elsewhere in the Northern Atlantic was most likely a result of a prolonged change in wind patterns in the North Atlantic, caused by a strong current from America to Europe,  (Golf stream for example).  Medieval warm period was mainly a regional phenomenon caused by altered heat distribution rather than a global phenomenon.   (The cause of the alteration of the heat distribution is not known.  One approach is to use models to try out possible causes.  Then compare to the data.  Those that closely match the actual climate change will give clues to what to look for in the data.)
So the problem is that many things can cause climate change and separating and weighting them is well beyond the capacity of our computer models.  I presented above the models can not even correlate to the recent past  when started from an earlier date.   
We can agree that the climate is changing, which it has always done.   And we can agree that humans do have an effect.  The indeterminate is the weight that should be put on our burning and harvesting of plants.   Some say the cutting down of forest is reducing the plant conversion.  However, no one has presented the difference between a forest and a crop field or any other type of plants.  My guess is that nature has made them about as equally efficient.  So the difference would be the fraction of light warming the ground between the different plant environments.   Again my guess is that a mature area has very little difference.  However we also know that more CO2 in the atmosphere results in more and more efficient plant consumption of the gas.   
John Howard Added Oct 30, 2018 - 4:47pm
You won't need a coat if it turns cold, Kid.  Just ask a liberal about the climate and you'll get lots of free warm air.
Susitna Added Oct 30, 2018 - 5:14pm
To Thomas: I got finally the chance to read all your comments and I thank you very much. You are becoming a teacher to me!
A. Jones Added Oct 30, 2018 - 5:56pm
We know we impact our environment,
The word "impact" can also mean "improve."
When we build a road or a bridge from point A to point B, and people use it (because they want or need to go from point A to point B) then we have not only "impacted" the environment but improved it.
A. Jones Added Oct 30, 2018 - 6:13pm
Here's my calculations based on the average square foot home in the US which stands at target="_blank">2700 square feet.
Averages are meaningless here. Rich Mr. Jones lives in a 20,000 sq.-ft. mansion and poor Ms. Smith lives in a hovel with negative square feet. Add their square-feet together and divide by two and you get an average of 2,700 sq-ft. Totally meaningless.
target="_blank">With about 136 million dwellings, with 77 million individual homes and 43 million renters in multiple dwellings, like me.
From my own personal experience of putting fiberglass insulation in this duplex it cost my a little over $1500, including the basement and more importantly around the perimeter.
You installed the fiberglass yourself? Good job. What about all those seniors (or invalids) who cannot, will not, or simply don't want to install fiberglass insulation themselves? They'll have to hire people to do that. Did you factor that into your calculation? No.
In single family dwellings it would cost $150 Billion.  77 million times 1500.  Multiple dwellings is almost impossible to calculate. 
So you're omitting a calculation of 43 million renters in apartments. 
Your calculations are nonsense.
Solar power is expensive, unreliable, and resource-intensive in its manufacturing process. To date, solar power is highly subsidized by government (as is wind-turbine power, which is even worse than solar). A coercive "green energy" policy by government would be an economic disaster in the U.S., just as it has been for Spain, Germany, and Denmark.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Oct 30, 2018 - 6:42pm
What is there to deny? I should believe in the radical predictions of numerous computer programs that make the wrong predictions on the earth's temperature? I should deny the sloppy outbursts of Al Gore or the phony science of Phis Jones and Mike Mann?
I do not have to deny their falsehoods. They are just jesters performing in their little costumes for political praise. 
They have nothing to show. 
FacePalm Added Oct 30, 2018 - 8:15pm
Thanks for the link to the Jerry Tennant lecture.  Quite interesting, indeed, though i'll need to do followup to see if his device works, or if he's scamming. 
I truly hate being scammed.
i do remember it being "against the UCMJ"(Uniform Code of Military Justice, the last two words generally an oxymoron, being internally contradictory, like "military intelligence") to deliberately take any kind of electricity into your body; this may possibly have been to forestall any discovery (even accidentally) that certain frequencies/voltages can indeed produce health benefits, as Tesla and his good friend, Sam Clemens, discovered in his hi-freq lab, on a particular plate.
Or maybe it was simply to try to slow down fools who like to say words akin to "Hey, Bubba!  Watch 'iss!" before sticking a tongue into a 120VAC outlet...or worse.
Friend of mine used to work on a piece of gear that ran 20kv through copper bars(wires didn't cut it - forgot how many kw); he said he went and put a danger tag on the circuit breaker, went to get a cup of coffee, and came back out to do some preventive maintenance.  When he reached into the unit, some idiot had noticed that his equipment wasn't working, went to the ckt brkr, ignored the large, red "DANGER" tag, and flipped it back on, so my friend literally got knocked back about 12' into a wall, where he said he "smelled the color maroon."
"Really?" i said, "What did it smell like?"
"Maroon," he replied.
Synesthesia, non-LSD induced, eh?
Gerrilea Added Oct 31, 2018 - 1:49am
A Jones-- You asked for my math, I presented it with links to how I actually calculated it...Now you claim it's bunk and ignores 43 million renters.  I conceded that final point without having more data to extrapolate the numbers for those people.  Do they live in 2, 3, 5, 50 unit dwellings? What number are Public housing, co-opts, senior living?  BESIDES, Why wouldn't the business owner of said dwellings pay for the upgrades?  Is it owner occupied? If so, sure let's help them out, if not, they're on their own.
I've given reasonable estimates, taking the higher cost for solar installation as the base because most aren't electrical engineers or fluent in all the local, state & federal codes for it's installation and deployment.
As for your belief that they aren't reliable, that's not what I've witnessed with co-workers whom have had them installed. YES, even here in Buffalo, their hybrid systems brought their average bill down to $20 a month---IN THE WINTER--because they sell back what they don't use.  He even had a smart car (which I'd never buy because it looks like a toy that if a sparrow hit it, you'd be dead) that he hadn't paid for gasoline in over 2 yrs because it was hooked up to his home at night.
So, the reasonable estimate is a little less than $2 trillion, which would bring the majority of our fellow Americans closer to independence from the almighty State and their enslavement to our corporate overlords.
You see, until you think it through, even just a little bit, it benefits each one of us and isn't some of the other suggestions that have been presented by the controlling how many children we have and "international agreements" and fake carbon trading.
My desire for us all is to become energy independent, not because the sky is falling but to make our lives better and easier and less toxic.
Gerrilea Added Oct 31, 2018 - 2:15am
Sunshine K--- Thanks, it's gone overboard. I accept Tree P and myself will not agree and we may become "colorful" in our language, but it's moved beyond debate and I will not participate at that level. He's attempting to hijack the conversation to stop us from forming a cohesive discussion...
FaceP--- Don't spend your money on any devices, except for a good stereo.  Turn it on, put in your favorite music and meditate, let the vibrations of the music heal you.  Google search for Earth's frequency.  There are thousands of various "frequency" files you could download for free.  Learn to "tune in" and you'll find it's easier to heal than they want let on.  Google Royal Raymond Rife.  Then read, Creative Visualization, by Shakti Gawain.
As for "smelling maroon" I quietly laugh out loud.  Thank goodness he didn't get killed or seriously hurt.  But it does go to show you that his brain was lit up, for a moment.
Blessings & peace, may you find the answers you need.
A. Jones Added Oct 31, 2018 - 5:10am
You asked for my math, I presented it with links to how I actually calculated it...Now you claim it's bunk and ignores 43 million renters
Um, you were the one who claimed to omit 43 million renters from your math, and then you proceed to pat yourself on the back by claiming the assumptions are “reasonable.” Sorry. It is unreasonable to omit 43 million people from your math; therefore, your math is bunk. If you lack the data, then you cannot proceed with the math. Don't proceed until the data are available.
“I’ve given reasonable estimates.” Except for the missing 43 million people. Therefore, your estimates are de facto unreasonable.
even here in Buffalo, their hybrid systems brought their average bill down to $20 a month---IN THE WINTER--because they sell back what they don't use.
I could do something similar in New York City . . . by picking the pockets of passersby and using their money to subsidize my energy costs, thus bringing down my average bill to $20/month, too. Yes, that is what you are doing in Buffalo. The fact that the state is picking the pockets of passersby (those who don’t have solar cells and are in fact subsidizing those who do) rather than the individual solar-users is irrelevant to the logic of the economics of the solar industry.
Your dream of “energy independence” is economic illiteracy, and your claim that solar panels will free us from the state is the reverse of the truth: the solar energy industry is entirely dependent on public subsidy (the Tesla plant in Buffalo, partnered with Panasonic, is just one of many examples). Without the state, and without the state’s power of taxing and spending, there would be no solar energy industry; there would only be sporadic, individual use of solar panels in places that geographically make sense for people to use them: locations that are too far from the grid, or too difficult to connect to the grid, to be optimally economic for the individual user.
Once more so you grasp it: A solar energy industry was, is, and will always be, a creature of state subsidies, and therefore requires a STATE to keep it alive.
Re “Energy independence.”
Economic gibberish. Economic progress and economic health are not achieved by economic “independence” — I.e., cultivating ALL of your own food supply; generating ALL of your own energy; manufacturing ALL of your own products; etc. Economic progress and economic health are achieved by focusing one’s talents and abilities on whatever it is one does best and then trading those one or two or three things for products and services that some other country does best. It’s called comparative advantage and it's is a basic law of economics, i.e., a fundamental law of voluntary human association.
The energy sectors (fossils, nukes, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc.) should be unregulated and left free to develop at their own expense, not by picking the public’s pockets, and to compete amongst themselves and amongst energy producers in other countries. If China happens to produce better, cheaper solar panels than the U.S. can do, then solar users in the U.S. are not “energy independent”; they are dependent on China. On the other hand, if Canada, Mexico, Norway, and Saudi Arabia produce more oil at less cost than the U.S. can do domestically via fracking shale deposits, then fossil-fuel consumers in the U.S. are dependent on Canada, Mexico, Norway, and Saudi Arabia. So what.
Conversely, Canada, Mexico, Norway, and Saudi Arabia are dependent on the U.S. for things the U.S. does better (higher quality; lower cost) than anyone else: designing smart devices; designing medical devices; designing new drug molecules (most of which come from U.S. startups and academia, not from Big Pharma).
Sorry, I don’t understand (and I am not sympathetic to) the desire for “economic independence”.
Sorry if you don’t get it. But here’s a famous analogy of what “economic independence” really amounts to:
Country A (the “Goodies”) is at war with Country B (the “Baddies”). In order to subdue the Baddies, the Goodies decide on a strategy that has historically always proven very effective: it’s going to coerce the Baddies into wasting their resources, their labor, and their time, by forcing them to produce literally everything domestically by themselves — energy, food, machinery, medicines, etc. — without the benefit of being able to conserve their resources by producing only a few things and then trading what they’ve produced for things they need produced by other countries.
A. Jones Added Oct 31, 2018 - 5:11am
Country A (the “Goodies”) is at war with Country B (the “Baddies”). In order to subdue the Baddies, the Goodies decide on a strategy that has historically always proven very effective: it’s going to coerce the Baddies into wasting their resources, their labor, and their time, by forcing them to produce literally everything domestically by themselves — energy, food, machinery, medicines, etc. — without the benefit of being able to conserve their resources by producing only a few things and then trading what they’ve produced for things they need produced by other countries. They way to achieve this is simple: it’s called a BLOCKADE. The Goodies will surround the Baddies (who live on an island) and prevent the Baddies from trading with any other country, as well as preventing any other nation from trading with the Baddies. Do blockades work? Yes. If imposed rigorously enough they have always been highly effective at subduing another country.
NOW: If makes no difference if the Baddies are coerced into being literally “independent” in everything they produce by means of a blockade imposed by the Goodies, or if the Baddies simply decide to adopt “economic independence” as part of government policy without a state of war occurring between them and the Goodies; the effect is exactly the same.
“Economic independence” is bunk. It sounds good (to economic illiterates), but it’s economic gibberish. Strong economies exist when there is INTERDEPENDENCE among many nations, each practicing its own comparative advantage, i.e., producing what it does best (“best” = “highest value as an output for the lowest value of economic input”) and trading that output for what other nations do best.
Finally: Economic interdependence also lessens the incentive (and therefore the chances) of going to war for purely economic reasons. 
FacePalm Added Oct 31, 2018 - 7:30am
i listen to music - and play/sing it - all the time; on average, i practice roughly 2hrs/day.  However, very little music these days incorporates the Solfeggio frequencies.
Remember those experiments where iron filings placed on a table have various audio frequencies run through them?  If one tunes to A417 instead of A440, coherent - and beautiful - patterns form - as opposed to the chaotic one "formed" by 440hz(as well as the rest of the strings, of course).  However, i don't currently have a tuner which i can adjust to the referenced frequencies, not yet, but i intend to when my circumstances improve.
Allegedly, the Rothschilds were behind the "de-tuning" somewhere around WW2, as not using the Solfeggio frequencies in music is deleterious to health.  Sick, scared, weak people are much easier to intimidate/rule, you see.
When i was searching out "suppressed inventions," i discovered the very sad story of Royal Raymond Rife roughly 15 years ago, another brilliant inventor whose ideas should have been completely embraced and implemented worldwide, with tickertape parades and every honor humanity is capable of bestowing - but instead, he was persecuted, his equipment sabotaged, his records burned...mainly because healthy people would have little need for doctors or treatments or pharmaceuticals...couldn't have THAT!  Could wreck the economy!
For anyone unaware, in the 1930's he figured out a way to view live human cells(something duplicated only fairly recently), especially disease vectors, which he then labelled, found a way to destroy without damaging any OTHER cells, and thus cured innumerable people of what ailed them, e.g. cancers the doctors of the time had pronounced "incurable."  Here's a more detailed article on Rife.
i was also aware of earth's frequency - that is, if you're referring to the roughly 8hz "standing wave" that Tesla discovered; he came up with an "earthquake machine," according to the biography of him i read, which worked in a similar way to this:
Suppose you're lying in a bathtub, and you scootch yourself forward to create a wave, like you may have done as a child.  If you time your "scootching" to catch the high point of the wave and add to it, it isn't long before the water sloshes out of the tub and you get yelled at.
The story i read said that Tesla had hooked an oscillator to one of the main support columns in his building, which went deep into the bedrock under NYC.  It was set up to sense the earth frequency, then pulse just past the peak of the wave.  Then he went about another experiment, and forgot about it.  Wasn't too long afterwards that things began vibrating off of shelves in his neighborhood, then the place started shaking, then people were panicking and running out into the streets...those who COULD.  Prisoners were freaking, and the police figured this was down to that crazy inventor, and when Tesla didn't answer his door promptly enough, they broke it down - but not before Tesla managed to smash the oscillator with a sledgehammer, because it wouldn't shut off - then he pretended innocence.
It is my understanding that he also wished to use the earth's frequency as a carrier wave, superimposing via heterodyning high-frequency waves on it, thus being able to harmlessly transmit power to every part of the planet, readily "tappable" anywhere by anyone who had the proper receiver/transformer - which was the purpose of the device built @ Wardenclyff - well, at least until his financial backer, J.P.Morgan, iirc, heard about it and cut off funding.  That superrich bastard did not want anyone to be able to get electrical power for free, you see.
(most of the foregoing is from memory, so forgive me if there may be errors.)
As to Shakti Gawain, never heard of him, so i'll check him out before long.
Thanks again!  Hope others have enjoyed the storytelling.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 31, 2018 - 7:43am
No electrical, no car, no insurance, no travel bills or hotel bills, raise most of my own food. 

I think somebody owes me a fracking hero cookie ... and here I thought being poor just sucked. 
Gerrilea Added Oct 31, 2018 - 9:14am
A Jones-- You really are trying to beat a dead horse, aren't you?  Where do I begin?
Let's see, the auto industry, the electronics industry, agriculture, big pharma, Walmart, etc, etc, etc EXIST as profitable businesses BECAUSE of our government handouts.  Your argument about Tesla and solar not existing without government funds falls on deaf ears, when reality is brought into focus.
Add in to this picture the billions that are given to private & public for profit "higher education" institutions for R&D.  As it stands We The People have funded the "modern era". As of 2016 we spend over $500 billion a year on it, see link above.
And ain't that the kicker?  The US taxpayer gets stuck with the expense for researching & developing the products, devices, etc and then private, corporations reap the profits! We take all the chances and your "capitalism" GIVES all the benefits to private individuals.
As for the propaganda included here:
"It’s called comparative advantage and it's is a basic law of economics, i.e., a fundamental law of voluntary human association."
There is NOTHING voluntary about the economic system that has been created around us today.  If those claims were even remotely accurate we wouldn't need a Department of Labor or Department of Education to train & condition our children or citizens into becoming "the workers of tomorrow".
Fundamentally I'm a libertarian with various shades of progressive & liberal ideas thrown in.  I am, in a word, a mutt.  Let people decide whether they wish to engage in economic activities.  If I don't work in the system, as it stands today, I don't have a home because I must pay my landlord whom must pay the almighty state his annual fees for leasing property he allegedly owns.
If there were a collapse like in 1929, which I suspect is just around the corner, millions would starve to death because they can't grown their own food, can't make their own clothing and live in urban settings where they have only one option to save them, THE ALMIGHTY STATE.
I'll continue this later...
Gerrilea Added Oct 31, 2018 - 9:23am
FacePalm--- Yep, I knew of Royal Raymond Rife over 20 yrs ago and your assessment is spot on, it's easier to control sick people and adds to the "economy".  Look into the 60 htz we use here in the US for electrical transmission....another little tidbit to uncover the truth.
Ward Tipton---  Being poor is a state of mind (and maybe pocketbook now and again)....ROFL.
Gerrilea Added Oct 31, 2018 - 10:47am
A. Jones-- (continued)
I hear echoes of "free trade, free trade, free trade" in your tirade which you summarized here:
"Strong economies exist when there is INTERDEPENDENCE among many nations, each practicing its own comparative advantage..."
And the final strawman was this:
"Finally: Economic interdependence also lessens the incentive (and therefore the chances) of going to war for purely economic reasons."
Seriously? Am I to buy into that shit? I'm "economically illiterate" to boot.
Ugh, all wars are banksters wars.  It's rarely, if ever, about "economics".  It's about control & power.  Our American history has always been about protecting the profits of private corporations.  How'd we obtain Hawaii again? Or why?  Dole.
Why did the US invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, et al?  It wasn't because of the terrorists, it wasn't to "bring freedom"... it was to protect the profits of Exxon Mobil and Halliburton AND the banksters.  Recall they were about to go live with their gold backed Dinar and we destroyed them.  The petro-dollar is all but dead, 17+ yrs later.
Fiat currencies have a run of 40 yrs or less, our military might has stopped its implosion.  There would be a 2nd American Revolution if people understood system they've been conditioned into believing was real.
I soundly reject your premise, faux idealism and what amounts to delusional propaganda.
I've been keeping score for a very long time.  We do not have freedom or capitalism.  We are free to buy whatever we like and we shall own nothing.  We are conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to desire useless trinkets and are brainwashed into believing wage-slavery is "freedom".  You were "taught" that economic prosperity only comes with expansion.  Problem with your teachings is that our current "prosperity" is all debt induced and not real free markets.
You do understand for the first 150+ yrs of this nation's existence we had a deflationary expansion and that all changed in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve and then the implementation of the FORCED "personal income tax" and within 20 yrs the banskters destroyed the world's economy to consolidate their wealth, power and control.  And they've repeated that process again and again and again and again.  Continually creating cycles of booms and busts.
Gerrilea Added Oct 31, 2018 - 11:36am
A. Jones--- (continued)---and hopefully for the last time.  Who wudda thunk an article on fake climate change propaganda and becoming energy independent would lead the conversation to this level?
Let's look at the numbers, shall we?
If your "economic" system were truly viable and successful.  Our nation wouldn't be/have $22 trillion of debt with $115 trillion in unfunded liabilities....JUST AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Americans wouldn't have a total personal debt of $19.8 trillion. $15.3 trillion in mortgage debt, $1.5 trillion for student loans and $1.3 trillion in credit card debt.
NOW, we didn't include the State and local debt of $1.1 trillion or the $6.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities or the local debt of $1.8 trillion.
Let's do some math:
$22 trillion, national debt
$115 trillion, national unfunded liabilities
$19.8 trillion, personal debt
$15.3 trillion, mortgage debt
$1.5 trillion, student loans
$1.3 trillion, credit card debt
$1.1 trillion, State debt
$6.3 trillion, State unfunded liabilities
$1.8 trillion, Local debt
Grand total = $182 TRILLION dollars in debt (and counting).
Yeah, your "economic gravitas" is revealed in all its glory.
Wait, if we balance that out with all the wealth we have---which stands at $149 trillion and we're still in the red.  The system is so wonderful we 98 million unemployed and 38 million in perpetual poverty.
The United States has become the largest debtor nation IN human history!!! least we're #1 at something.
A. Jones, PLUEASE don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining...I understand this a tad better than you want others to know.
So, when I say that we should become energy independent, I meant it.  It's the first step in taking back control of this nation from the criminal sycophants that have infiltrated every level and everything.
FacePalm Added Oct 31, 2018 - 3:53pm
One imaginary hero cookie on the way.
(if i had more dough, i'd literally send you one, along with - what was it, again?  Long-cut Skoal?)
Ken Added Oct 31, 2018 - 4:07pm
sunshine kid lays out all the numbers real time
Jeff Michka Added Oct 31, 2018 - 4:54pm
Ah, that wonderful concept of "safe nuclear" gets brought up again as a solution to limit carbon emission products.  Fine, but I insist all the nuclear waste gets stored a 'rilla's, Kenny's and Lindsay's place in their living rooms, where they can truly appreciate nuclear waste in all its glory.
Doug Plumb Added Oct 31, 2018 - 6:17pm
Whenever the man behind the desk on 11 o'clock news tells us something, it seems that we must believe it or be able to disprove it. Fifteen years or so shows that AGW is bullshit.
I'm for nukes. Plants and animals do just fine around Chernoble and the fish prices haven't changed since Fukushima. Its cheap and reliable.
Actually I think we would be better burning gas in generators at our houses or neighborhoods.
I don't have any time for silly AGW debates.
goldminor Added Oct 31, 2018 - 6:24pm
Haven't tried the calculator by my carbon footprint would be way down at the bottom. On the other hand O would never worry about my C footprint or indeed that of others.
CO2, not carbon, is an essential life giving gas in the atmosphere for all life on this planet. Mankind is fortunate that they discovered fossil fuels. I say this not only in regards to the time saver benefits of FF which allowed mankind to step forward at a good pace into the modern era, but that during the last 2 glaciation periods of the current Ice Age CO2 levels had dropped seriously low at around 180 ppm.
That was too close for comfort as 150 ppm would mean death for most life on this planet. The reason why? Nature has been steadily sequestering CO2 for billions of years. Mankind has now given all life on this planet a reprieve from a death sentence by adding back into the atmosphere the CO2 which had been taken out of the atmosphere over time. That is a huge consideration.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 31, 2018 - 6:25pm
Yeah, we know PlumbDoug, you got "important things" to talk about "serious stuff" like denying the holocaust, worrying about Stanley Kubrick's "moon landings," and, of course "the Sandyhook school shooting conspiracy."  Now. you've got synagogue massacre conspiracies and pipebombing conspiracies to parse and fret about.
Ken Added Oct 31, 2018 - 9:03pm
glad to help.  Unlike what several lefties here state, I actually have a lot of rational and REAL sources of information I am aware of that I pull data and facts from.
Ward Tipton Added Oct 31, 2018 - 9:26pm
Goldminor - They also tend to forget ... or not realize that an elimination of greenhouse gases would eliminate the greenhouse gas effect which would eliminate the atmosphere ... hardly conducive to life on this planet. 
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 12:43am
Sunshine K--- Thanks for the support...the link in the reply with all the numbers goes right to US Debt Clock and as Ken pointed out, it's a real-time ticker.  That's exactly where I got all the info from.
Goldminor-- Yes, it's been a national distraction for 30+ yrs and nothing has been done to make any of our lives better.  Even PBS Science had a video out a couple years ago, we may have dodged another ice age because of our emissions.  I have a link to it in a reply above.
Ward T--- That point Flying J finally understood, if we don't have an atmosphere, we're all dead.
Ken---Thanks for the help.  While we don't agree on various tops there is no reason we can't come together on the ones we generally do.  With logic, critical analysis and an adult conversation we can move beyond the bs and false divisions that has been created between us all.
Ward Tipton Added Nov 1, 2018 - 1:40am
If we were united as a single species, we would not be so easily divided and controlled. Sun Tzu ... paraphrasing.
FacePalm Added Nov 1, 2018 - 1:59am
"Meet the new boss...
Same as the old boss...
We don't get fooled again!"
goldminor Added Nov 1, 2018 - 2:35am
@ Ward T ... the main ghg is water vapor at around 40,000 ppm. That is a concentration which is 1,000 times greater than CO2. While CO2 does have a warming effect in the atmosphere that warming effect mainly occurs within the first 80 ppm in the atmosphere. Additional CO2 has a diminished effect by comparison. That likely explains why we do not see a global temp spike over the last 20 years.
In the last 20 years around 46 ppm has been added into the atmosphere. That is approximately 37% of all of the human generated CO2 emitted over the last 168 years. The year 1850 is generally accepted as the transition point where human influence really took off. The starting point back in 1850 for CO2 is at 280 ppm, currently we are at 410 ppm. So you can see the point which I am making about the last 20 years, and the record setting increase of atmospheric CO2 in that time span. There should be a clear temp signal. Yet there is none to be seen. Nature is fully in control of climate change.
goldminor Added Nov 1, 2018 - 2:42am
@ Gerrilea ..I have heard that claim before over the years. If additional CO2 does indeed keep the planet from falling back into renewed glaciation, then we humans should declare a global holiday of celebration. However, per my above comment the huge record setting increase over the last 20 years shows that it is nature which is in control of temp changes on this planet.
Take a look at what the satellite record is showing from the UAH scientists, ...
Tomorrow we should see the results for October from UAH. This is getting interesting. I expect that global temps are going to fall below the zero trend line in the several years ahead of us. The alarmists are going to have a very hard time explaining how this can happen with ever increasing amounts of CO2 steadily growing year after year
A. Jones Added Nov 1, 2018 - 5:02am
Where do I begin?
That's easy to answer. You should begin by taking a course in Econ101 so that you know what the fuck you're talking about. It's painfully obvious that you don't (which is the main reason you post stupidities about "energy independence" or any other kind of economic "independence").
Start with the fundamental idea of scarcity; then progress to the idea of opportunity cost; then to the importance of division-of-labor and specialization. When you feel you've got it, then forge ahead and try — really try — to understand comparative advantage. When you do, you'll see why it's plain stupid to speak of any kind of economic independence, whether it's "energy independence", or "agricultural independence" or "manufacturing independence".
the auto industry, the electronics industry, agriculture, big pharma, Walmart, etc, etc, etc EXIST as profitable businesses BECAUSE of our government handouts.
Um, bullshit. But I forgot: you know zero about economics (proof: you cannot toss in the highly unionized U.S. auto industry — which indeed has required subsidies and/or federal government loan guarantees to compete with more efficient foreign auto production — with the U.S. "electronics industry", whatever you might mean by that).
Oh, and by the way, here's a study (from 2009) by Spanish economist Gabriel Calzada on the job-destroying subsidies of the "green energy" sector in Spain: by his calculation, a single publicly subsidized job in solar energy or wind-turbine power sucks enough resources out of Spain's private sector to prevent 2.5 private jobs from being created; and it's the private sector that is source of the wealth used for those very subsidies! It's a bit like trying to walk in the direction you're facing by taking one step forward and 2.5 steps backward and wondering why you're not moving forward . . .
. . . And we wonder why Spain has over 40% unemployment!
Ward Tipton Added Nov 1, 2018 - 6:58am
Chiffon - It's Not Nice to Fool with Mother Nature ... but I do not know how many people here are old enough to remember that one LOL 
Mother nature will always win ... as inevitably as death!
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 9:50am
A. Jones--- Your claims about me are immaterial.  Let's argue the consequences and facts. 
1. The US government funded IBM when it first started in Binghamton, NY.  (Where I'm from).  It's how they got so big, our money.
2. Most, if not all, of the modern communications, computers, cameras, et al are direct results of military R&D that were adapted for civilian use.  Example, GPS satellites. The 24 geostationary ones we use were placed there because of our military.
3. Who designed, created and built the modern roads, bridges, damns etc that we have today? The Army Corp of Engineers. Who created the interstate system? Eisenhower.
4. Funding to "higher education" was "granted" to teach future generations mechanical engineering, particle physicists, chemical engineers, etc, etc, etc.  As I established above, we currently give $500 billion a year for PUBLIC R&D.
5. The "modern" internet got its idea and start within the US funded communications networks that the military used and was deployed in Colleges to connect to government databases.
6.  Obama admitted a few years ago that We The People funded Google and Facebook, as startups.  Google was and always will be a creature of the CIA.
Now, as for your "economics" and division of labor and supply and demand and on and on and on.  MEANINGLESS, when viewed from the big picture.
If private, for-profit industries were to lose our tax-breaks on property; to lose our direct grants & aid & bailouts, the huge tax breaks they've gotten, they'd be all but bankrupt.
Excuse after excuse was presented by the MSM.  The one that stands out for me: "They can't compete with cheap labor from foreign nations." So, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, etc gave tax-breaks for American industries to move their operations to slave-labored nations and touted it as "free trade".
From banking, insurance, big pharma, auto, agriculture, etc.  The banksters don't go to jail when they create fictitious "legal" instruments that set the stage for the 2008 collapse. The "savings & loan" scam of the 1980's, We The People spent $450 billion bailing them out.  How many times did We The People bail out the auto industry?  Why does big pharma have Congressional mandated immunity from lawsuits for their products? How much do we give to dairy farmers or corn farmers? BILLIONS!
Your "economics" is an illusion.
When I offer just one solution to better the lives of the majority of Americans, you claim the sky will fall!  You don't want us to be independent and self-sufficient.
Why's that?  Will your stock portfolio collapse when we realize we don't need your widgets and shinny objects?
Oh and don't think I didn't notice you didn't discuss the debt your "economics" created. Or the 98 million Americans that are unemployed or the 38 million that are in perpetual poverty.
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 10:06am
A. Jones--- All that aside, this doesn't mean there are not creative geniuses out there that shouldn't be funded or helped out by We The People. 
IN the final analysis, sure jobs might be lost in oil or coal or gas or whatever.  We're always going to use oil & gas for building stuff, from roads to televisions to phones.  HOW do we move forward so that those products are less destructive and toxic to the environment we all share?
And FYI, I really don't begrudge anyone whom buys a widget or shinny object.  It's their choice.  Thorium Salt Reactors could deal with 90% of the waste we create and not have it left in landfills or the oceans or the air.
Shit, if we deployed Monolithic domed houses throughout Tornado Alley, millions would never again be threatened or killed by them.  We wouldn't need to spend billions on insurance or "emergency" aid.  If we repeated that in along our coast lines, like in Florida with hurricanes, DITTO.  If we deployed them in "wildfire" prone areas, like California...DITTO, YET AGAIN.
Yes, the "construction" industry would lose....AND millions of American lives would be saved.  Your clear choice would be to let them choice to is to save them.
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 10:10am
Goldminor--- ROFL...okay...
Do you know what the problem is about the obvious?
Missing it.
Ugh, as I chuckle loudly at my kitchen table this morning.
Thank you for helping me think more critically and rationally.
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 10:13am
To everyone that's replied, thank you.  Despite having pneumonia, I've tried to keep up here...I've noticed that I misspelled quite a few things and missed a "the" or such... My hands don't move as fast as I think these days.
Hopefully you understood what I was saying.
Thanks for the patience.
FacePalm Added Nov 1, 2018 - 1:08pm
Sorry about the pneumonia; had it myself when i was about 11 or 12(single lobe) and the left lung's been weaker ever since.  The coughing's what sucks so bad, and the phlegm; the former leaves you aching, and the latter's just yuck.
"i used to smoke 20 packs of cigarettes a day.  But since i had one lung removed, i cut my cigarette smokin' in half!"(old line from Cheech&Chong record)
But if/when ZPE comes into play, as well as the reverse-engineered anti-grav, we can eliminate roads entirely, and fly from place to place.  Might be more fun than driving, too.
If we replace the people currently manipulating our weather for evil, we can manipulate it for Good, too, and so reduce if not eliminate both drought and flooding...also generally good for the planet and everything that lives on it.
Monsanto will need to go(or revamp their corporate strategy immensely); their "terminator seeds" and glyphosates are just too manipulative/coercive/tyrannical/monopolistic, in the first instance, and too poisonous/carcinogenic, in the second.  If one desires to kill the weeds in their sidewalk/driveway, a salt-water solution will work great and not poison EVERYthing, much less get into the water table, like, say, atrazines or other fertilizer runoff.
Waste treatment will need to be vastly improved, as well, for current treatment plants do nothing about the heavy metals and other contaminants(like estrogen mimickers, birth control meds, zanax meds, ad nauseum) from entering the food supply; quite a few of these places offer farmers "free fertilizer," but don't bother to inform them of what it contains.  Mike Adams, the "Health Ranger," is working on a video describing these dangers.
That said, i DO believe we as a people are sufficiently technologically advanced that we can solve ALL these problems and more; there just has to be the WILL to do so.
Ever hear the phrase "thermal depolymerization"?  i know of two plants that have been set up.  What they can do is rapidly increase the decomp of various materials currently clogging landfills, and separate them into their constituent components.  Anything organic can be readily converted to #2 fuel oil, which i suspect could then be cracked to obtain the same or similar products as currently produced by refineries.  Anything inorganic could be shipped to manufacturers at less cost than to mine, refine, and transport it, also good for the earth and everything living in, on, above or below it's surface.
Then, there's hemp - an amazing plant.  One acre of it can yield as much paper as 5 acres of trees, and every year, too, as opposed to the 25+ it takes to re-grow trees.  It can also make clothing which is far more durable than any of the synthesized fibers made by, say, DuPont; it's oil can have biodegradable plastics refined from it, also great for the environment, especially in re: trashbags and grocery bags(though i have and use cloth ones).
But for much of this to happen, the oil companies would have to get on-board with healing the planet instead of hurting it.  At present, they don't seem much interested.
Both positive and negative incentives would need to be employed, but again, we CAN solve the problems if the will to do so can either be persuaded or compelled to manifest.   Carrots seems to only work well in the presence of sticks, and the will to use the sticks as necessary for motivation.
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 2:21pm
FaceP--- Thanks for the concern on my "cold"...The cough is killing me and I can barely lay down for more than an hour and coughing again and the yellowish-green-white-foamy stuff is disgusting.  Hey but once I hack up that "hairball", I feel great for a bit.
And what a fabulous clue, I'd never heard of "thermal depolymerization", I'll Google it in a bit. It could be powered by the Thorium Salt Reactors I mentioned.
Yes we have so many legitimate options and opportunities.
The water "treatment" plants we have are mostly useless, as you've pointed out, there are 300+ other toxic things that are in our tap water, THAT THEY REFUSE TO TEST FOR.  If people knew, they'd never use it for flushing the damn toilet.  Let alone using it for showers, or watering the lawns or drinking it.
I have a $2000 whole house filtering system that I installed myself.  Takes out fluoride, sediments and has an UV light that kills viruses and a carbon filter to "finish" it off.
FacePalm Added Nov 1, 2018 - 3:21pm
Several years back, i picked up a "Waterwise" distiller, and drank nothing but distilled water for a few years, until i read that doing so can leach out the good stuff from your body, so i began dissolving a teaspoon of sea-salt per gallon, to improve it's beneficial effect instead of potentially removing essential trace minerals/elements.
i would have liked to filter ALL the water coming in, especially for showering, but ran outta dough. 
IOW, you're absolutely correct in re: what's generally in "drinking" water, alleged "potable" water.
In my searching around, i found a natural way to distill water, though it takes a good deal of effort.  What you do is dig a 4'x4'x4' cube into the earth, put a clean 5-gal bucket in the center, cover the hole with a clear plastic sheet, then put a rock in the center from the outside so that any condensate will drip into the bucket, anchoring the corners.
One can even urinate around the area, and the earth/sun combo will clean it for you.  Well, good to know in case of an emergency, anyhow.
But yes, i think you'll be quite impressed with the possibilities/potentialities of thermal depolymerization.  One plant, the largest, sits not far from the Butterball Turkey processing plant; all the "offal" - feet, heads, feathers, intestines etc. - are processed into the aforementioned #2 fuel oil, fertilizer, less cost than your typical 55 gal. drum cost for crude.
plant temp closed for odor, 2007
But every contaminant in everything can be collated, so to speak, then re-sold to manufacturers, so it's real potential for restoring the earth to balance has yet to come CLOSE to being tapped.
goldminor Added Nov 1, 2018 - 4:48pm
@ Gerrilea...take care, and I hope your illness passes soon. Pneumonia is what gets many of us at the end of the road.
Ward Tipton Added Nov 1, 2018 - 10:08pm
The problem with resolutions to the problems is that they would adversely impact the banksters via the global economic system. It is much easier to slap on a few new taxes while they do absolutely nothing to address the actual problems and continue in their crony capitalist ways. 
Gerrilea Added Nov 1, 2018 - 10:48pm
Goldminer--- Thank you, the dizziness has subsided and I'm feeling much better as each hour passes.  "If your born to be hung, you won't drown" seems to come to mind these days. Whatever the fate has in store, only time will tell.
Ward T--- That's exactly why they've had us "debating" this for 30+ yrs. 
FacePalm Added Nov 2, 2018 - 1:29am
Minor point, but potentially humorous:
There a great, wide gulf between "being hung" and "being hanged."
Ask any stallion, for example...
Glad you seem to be on the mend, but if you're on antibiotics, keep takin' 'em on schedule 'til they're all gone(but you probably already know this).
i read an interesting(as in "different") book by Steven King called "The Gunslinger."(a series, actually.)  In it, the title character found out about antibiotics, specifically "Keflex."  i discovered that it's the name of an actual antibiotic, and got some "just in case."  Came in handy once or twice, 'til it was used up.
Gerrilea Added Nov 2, 2018 - 3:40am
Facepalm--- Ughhhhh.... "hanged" vs. "hung".. Ughhhhhhh...again.
I knew that!  I knew that! I really knew that!  My mind is just not all there, I've seem to misplaced parts of it.
My antibiotic days are over.  Last year I had an infection in my stomach and was on 4 different ones, at the same time, for just under 2 months.  They destroyed so much of me, I've been battling a "thrush" infection in my throat for over 9 months now.
Unless I've cut off an arm or leg or forced into the hospital for some ungodly reason...I'll never take them again.
My personal treatment has been massive amounts of vitamin D-3 & water...I was taking 5000 units every 2-3 hours for the first 3 days and down to 4 times a day.  It's made a world of difference, better than any antibiotic I've ever taken.
FacePalm Added Nov 2, 2018 - 5:49pm
If you can get some powdered Vit. C (usually pretty available these days online or at a GNC), that will also help.
Back in the day, my dad would crush up the tabs into a powder, dissolve them in his favorite Minute Maid OJ, then drink it, slowly, allowing the powder to coat his throat.
It's worked for me, too; when i'm feeling particularly horrible, i'll often make some green tea, sweetened with honey, and add about a tablespoon of the powdered Vit. C - but we all have different biochemistries, and what works for one won't necessarily work for another.
Glad you're healing up, and you gave me a bellylaugh with the hanged/hung comments.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 2, 2018 - 6:06pm
Face Palm:  the thermal depolymerization idea is truly interesting.  Hope all gets better soon.  I've been off the site, under the weather for the most part--but it's just a bad cold.  Change of seasons, I guess.  Does anyone know if the new flu vaccine is worth the candle? 
Gerrilea Added Nov 2, 2018 - 11:54pm
Facepalm--- That's a great idea for the vitamins, direct contact with the virus. 
Jim S--- If you've already been sick, its rare that you'd get it again in the same season, natural immunity.  I'd be careful on the flu shots. Simply put, it's a guess using last years strains and you'd be playing Russian roulette with the adjuvants in them.
I had a co-worker's wife get one and she got Guillain–Barré syndrome and she's has been paralyzed from the waste down for over 8 yrs now.  It's about profits, not health.
Vitamin D-3 & C and lots of water and rest and the best medicine.  The last part is almost impossible for me these days.
FacePalm Added Nov 3, 2018 - 2:52am
Since i got out of the military, almost 40 years ago, i've never taken a vaccine, and have no intent to ever do so again in this lifetime...not until the law changes and the manufacturers can be held directly liable for any damages their vaccines might cause again.
It's not that the vaccines themselves are bad, it's the "adjuvants" in them, as Gerrilea notes - that, and especially with children, they "bundle" so many vaccines all at once that they overwhelm their still-developing immune systems and cause major damage.
If interested, you may wish to check out this article from Mike Adams, the "Health Ranger":
Doug Plumb Added Nov 3, 2018 - 7:07pm
Dr. Stan Monteith, who had a show on the web and a very informative one on the New World Order always said that there was no reason to believe that vaccines were effective.
goldminor Added Nov 3, 2018 - 7:37pm
Gerrilea is another suggestion for maintaining one's health. Diet is of prime importance in the main for maintaining resistance to bugs. I see that you mention that your stomach was impacted by the medicines which you had to take.
There are several food items which are strong natural medicine, imo. Papayas, specifically Hawaiian papayas, are a superior medicine in alleviating stomach ailments. Earlier this year I learned that papaya seeds are also of great benefit. I would always throw them away, but now I dry the seeds, and then grind them in my coffee grinder. They have a slight peppery taste. Usage is a teaspoon of the ground seeds.
Another amazing discovery from earlier this year was that the green seeds from cilantro (aka, coriander) are also a stomach medicine. I came across that by pure accident. I went to the doctor early this year to get a few things checked out. One of the issues was worsening severe upper gastric problems. The doctor gave me a pamphlet for Prilosec with the intent that this is what I would have to take for the rest of my life for my severe heartburn, and stomach upset. This was in early March. Around that time a cilantro plant which I had kept in my greenhouse through the winter then flowered and started producing it's green berries.
I had never taken note of this before as I had never gotten into growing cilantro before. Curious about them that they could be used in cooking, as they had a very strong fragrance, I nibbled on several of them. The flavor was intense, but around 5 or 10 minutes after eating the 3 or 4 green berries I became aware that they appeared to have a beneficial effect on my upper gastric/stomach issue. So I went online, and searched for an herbal remedy site to see if these berries were in fact recognized as having medicinal value. Sure enough there it was at that all of the cilantro plant was beneficial for stomach ailments, and that the green seeds were especially potent in this regard.
I started eating 4 or 5 of the berries 3 times a day. In 6 days my stomach/upper gastric troubles had disappeared. It was incredible to me after the many years of ever growing discomfort. I then made it a point to grow and harvest a supply of the berries. I froze them so that I could keep them in their fresh green state. Otherwise they turn into coriander when dried, perhaps useful but not as potent as fresh ones. Now I only eat a few of them on occasion as I still drink a lot of coffee, too much coffee at times. Amazingly, I found that I could also once again enjoy alcohol as a result. I can also eat a late night meal, drink coffee, and go to sleep with zero discomfort. All of the above was forbidden on the Prilosec pamphlet.
Then in further reading I found other useful natural products to maintain health. I had known about the benefits of Hawaiian papaya since the 1970s thanks to a 7th Day Adventist, but I did not know that the seeds held great benefit for the stomach and for liver/kidney health. In early March I had been told that I needed to immediately start dialysis or face imminent death. That raised some issues for me as to affordability as I live in the mountains, and would have to drive 40 miles 3 times a week into the nearest city for treatment. That is what led me to consider any alternatives for the short term. I cleaned up my diet a good bit, and so far so good. I feel great, and using test strips to monitor kidney functions I can see that I have even had a slight improvement on the indicators in the 8 months since I started down this path.
Lastly, I am now convinced that some seeds have a powerful ability to aid us in maintaining good health, and in some cases are superior to man made treatments.
FacePalm Added Nov 3, 2018 - 10:19pm
Yes, when i first heard of and investigated thermal depolymerization, i thought the idea had TREMENDOUS potential - and it still does - but apparently, no one else in this country is experimenting with it, more's the pity.
But if i win the lottery(yeah, right)...
Very interesting stuff you discovered on your own; i have an elderly cousin who's been into naturopathy all her life, and what she told me is that virtually ALL 'medicines'(phamaceuticals) are originally derived from various plants, so of course various plants (roots, leaves, berries, seeds) will be good for various things. 
The trick is to know what to take, how much, and when.  Generally, natural healing herbs are much more gentle than that doled out by Big Pharma, anyway.
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 4, 2018 - 3:03pm
Doug Plumb
"Dr. Stan Monteith, who had a show on the web and a very informative one on the New World Order always said that there was no reason to believe that vaccines were effective."
In 1968 I was living in Salinas and was vaccinated against  the Hong Kong flu while in the Navy and was the only person out of hundreds in that  housing area who did NOT get the flu.
Cow pox extracts were used to vaccinate, successfully, Queen Elizabeth and thousands more. 
Very effective, sometimes. I was vaccinated against the flu last year and caught the A strain. 
goldminor Added Nov 5, 2018 - 5:03am
@ ryck ...and I have never had a flu shot, and seldom get sick. Then again, just 2 years ago I did get sick along with many others in the area in which I live. That flu 2 years ago was a powerful flu. It was long lasting at about almost 2 months duration. It made me think of the Spanish flu epidemic of the early 1900s.
The reason for the comparison is that there is a solar cycle named the Gleissberg cycle. This cycle induces cold trends, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. The last one was back in the early 1900s, or right around the time of when the Spanish Flu struck. Guess where we are right now climate wise? Are we about to experience another serious global flu epidemic? I say that as the flu which hit me was one of the strongest I have ever experienced in my life.
I came very close to dying back in 1954 to a flu virus at the age of 4 years old. It is very likely that it was due to the US Army testing biological warfare techniques back at that time off of the California coast around San Francisco. They had dropped flu viruses which then came in on the prevailing wind pattern. At the height of my illness I told my mom one morning that the cowboys were chasing the Indians around the room. The wallpaper was of cowboys and Indians. She ran to get the doctor. I then remember Dr Mallia standing at the foot of my bed with my parents, and they were all looking fairly grim faced. The Dr stated that if my condition got worse that they could place me on an Iron Lung, but that would be a last resort. My body temp was hovering at around 106 F.
After surviving that episode, I then had severe sinus conditions every winter. All the way up until the end of the 1960s, when I first moved into the mountains of California, when I became old enough to leave home. That was the end of my yearly sinus episodes, and from that point on it became very rare for me to ever take ill with the flu or colds. That is why that very strong flu from several years ago made me wonder about its strength. Especially as I have spent the last 10+ years studying climate related material which made me aware that there could be a potential connection between the cyclical 100+ year cold trend and the Spanish Flu Epidemic.
Doug Plumb Added Nov 6, 2018 - 3:59am
Ex Professor Lorraine Day also says vaccinations are known not to actually work. I know the vaccination schedule is for a different purpose than immunization, the evidence (autism) is obvious. Autism is far worse than the flu, in both long and short term. Vaccinations become normal for children, Autism is now normal.
FacePalm Added Nov 8, 2018 - 12:25am
i'm glad that you seem to have developed resistance to most diseases. 
I noted that you've been studying climate-related material for some time; have you ever read up on geoengineering, and if so, do you think it's affecting the environment positively, has no effect, or negatively?
rycK the JFK Democrat Added Nov 8, 2018 - 4:29pm
"Are we about to experience another serious global flu epidemic?"
Almost all flu starts off in about the same region of China in a process involving ducks, pigs and humans. 
So, we do not know what or when .
Jacob Wheeler Added Nov 16, 2018 - 11:26am
A major problem with studying climate change isn't the science, but the politicization of science.  Mainly Al Gore, but also by some scientists themselves.  The standard ending of any scientific paper is "this area needs more research", not "We're all gonna die!".  Personally, I blame the lack of critical thinking skills on a lot of current major issues in the US.  
Jim Stoner Added Nov 16, 2018 - 6:09pm
Thanks for the advice and responses, Gerrilea, Face Palm, goldminor.