Select Page

Climate change debate ignores reality

Climate change debate ignores reality

One of the problems in political discourse, in general, is that we too often debate headlines and narratives and not the basic facts.  Nowhere is that truer than in so many of the discussions regarding climate change.

The headline debate is said to be between those who say the climate is warming and those who deny it.  Actually, that is not the debate at all – or should not be. It is a narrative created for purely political advantage.

Virtually every scientist agrees that the earth has warmed up in recent years.  That is not where the serious debate takes place.

The two issues that are more relevant are … how much does mankind add to the carbon emissions that are giving the earth a bit of a glasshouse effect and what can we do about it? 

So, the first thing to get straight is where are all those harmful gases coming from?  Many folks believe that mankind is a MAJOR contributor.  Au Contraire.  

The earth recycles about 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year. Most of that comes from the land and the sea – and that is ten times as much as humans produce.  Let that sink in.  The natural environment on land and sea contributes 90 percent of all CO2 going into the atmosphere – almost equally divided between land and sea.

That may be both startling and enlightening since I cannot tell you how many times I have heard folks – even smart folks – say that we humans contribute most of the CO2.  

The earth and the sea also absorb CO2 as part of the natural cycle – and that is where the controversy starts. If, by way of example, we assume that the land and sea each generate 45 billion tons of CO2 per year – and we humans add 10 billion tons – what gets absorbed?

Basically, the land and sea have a good recycling system.  They essentially recycle what they expel.  The problem rests with the 10 percent attributable to human activity.  That is where the buildup takes place.  While the land and the sea can absorb a portion of the man-made gases, they cannot absorb and recycle them all.

Most folks agree that reducing man-made carbon emissions is a good idea.  Every little bit helps.  But can we cut back sufficiently to reverse the greenhouse effect without plunging mankind back into the Stone Age?  We may have to adjust to the reality of a warming planet for now.  Earth will eventually cycle into a cooling period – but that may take a few thousand years.

The battle over climate change is based on two fronts.  Internationally, a whole lot of countries would like America to take our foot off the accelerator of a dynamic economy for the benefit of our foreign competitors and adversaries.  On the domestic side, Democrats find political advantage in taking the climate issue and inflating it to an end-of-the-world narrative through scaremongering for political benefit.

Since we are not going to stop global warming in its tracks (that has been proven over and over) – and there is no way we can reduce man-caused CO2 emissions sufficiently to solve the problem – we should probably focus our public policy efforts on (1) a REASONABLE plan to reduce CO2 emissions and (2) focus on mitigating the future impacts of global warming.  And by “reasonable,” I mean something that would not turn America into a third-world country – as we help China and other countries become the new world leaders.

In terms of mitigation of rising temperatures, major coastal cities should be building infrastructure to deal with higher ocean levels.  Zoning should be used to limit residential and commercial construction in coastal regions – especially those in the hurricane zone.   Zoning should be used to stop construction in river floodplains.

To mitigate the impact of western brush fires, we need to control housing developments in fire-prone regions – and undertake land management policies that will inhibit fire in residential areas.

In tornado-pone regions, building codes should be used to improve structural strength – and the routine construction of safe bunkers within the home.

A lot needs to be done – and can be done – if we stop debating climate change as some political Kabuki Theater that is long on political theatrics and short on common sense fact-based policies.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Upsidedownjack1

    Hummmmm, but Nothing about “POLAR SHIFT”? But, but, but we know that has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING! RIGHT?

    • frank stetson

      Polar shift? Let’s do the time warp again! It’s just a jump to the left……


  2. Paul

    Does anybody know what happened to the Wisconsin glacier.?

  3. William Van Raalte

    That doesn’t fit the Liberal view so they ignore it and debunk it.
    Woe be to anyone who disagrees. I don’t care what they try to tell me.
    Windmills and solar panels will never cover our energy needs. We can’t count on
    the wind always blowing and the sun always shining. Even in the desert southwest
    they only have 300 days of sun on the average over the course of a year.
    I’m tired of hearing the U.S. has to better. We’re already the best at cutting down on
    the CO2. Start damning India, China, and Russia. They are by far the worst in the
    world for polluting.

    • frank stetson

      I think you can look at some facts to perhaps change your view: Solar in the US can easily sustain us, even with cloudy days. Panel’s covering 22K square miles, smaller than Lake Huron, can supply the entire US. jfgi.

      I agree, this is a global effort, we need carrot and stick to bring all aboard. HOWEVER, we need to lead by example and damning others as a rationale for our pollution is not productive to the efforts or our cause. We need to build forward together, not a cat fight over “you did it, so we can to.”

      • Tom

        Frank, can you post where you got your figures from? I am not contesting them, I just want to read more about it. By the way, read about China and how they are destroying farm land and other ecologically protected lands to sell to green energy companies to make solar panel fields. This is a world wide problem with 197 serious complaints already registered! See at “”

        And do read about solar panels and how some of the panel is recyclable, some parts that contain dangerous metallic elements are not recyclable at this time, nor is there any kind of large scale recycling program within the USA. See “” And it takes chemical and electrical heat processes to peel away the polymer coatings in order to extract some of these dangerous metal components. Also, the semiconductor control units use very dangerous chemicals while the production process for these semiconductors deposits very dangerous effluents (arsine, phosphine, phosgene, etc.) in the air and ground water, not to mention the high power epitaxial reactors needed to make the semiconductors dumping lots of heat in to an already heating up climate. And as with the EV batteries, right now these panels are being warehoused in the hopes that one day we will be able to recycle them. The problem is that nobody has done a full lifecycle analysis of the true costs, carbon, chemical pollution, precious mineral mining pollution, and all of the energy required for the production, use, and destruction of solar panels and their associated controls. It may not be as wonderful as the climate/solar people think.

        Solar panels also have unintended heat costs. In a recent article, it states, “While the black surfaces of solar panels absorb most of the sunlight that reaches them, only a fraction (around 15 percent) of that incoming energy gets converted to electricity. The rest is returned to the environment as heat. The panels are usually much darker than the ground they cover, so a vast expanse of solar cells will absorb a lot of additional energy and emit it as heat, affecting the climate.” “See“. Do we want this unintended heat out west where they already claim that global warming is causing all these fires? So imagine the heat that will be produced by your 22K mile solar field? Just sayin….

        I was a semiconductor factory plant engineer for a major semiconductor company. I know what chemicals in these things and the tons of effluent given off by these processes! I distributed the power to run the scrubber systems required to filter out the dangerous chemicals from the air. We put them in resins, then bury the resins! I am not saying don’t go this route. What I am saying is lets have an honest report on the lifecycle costs and risks to environment and human health associated with these panels before we go that route. For once, I would like to see an intelligent decision based on the total amount of science, and not on corporate greed and environmentalist rah rah. So there’tis

        • frank stetson

          OK, I lied. It’s really Lake Michigan (22,000) they use but I don’t like that lake so used Lake Huron (23,000) and said, smaller than.

          Now add on that Elon feels we can do 10,000 square miles; about the size of the Best Great Lake, Erie, with a 20% boost to efficiency with the next gen panels.

          ps: you raise some interesting points and it all reminds me a bit of “paralysis by analysis.” Not sure any of these has risen to the point of stopping our advancements into solar energy. To me, the bigger concern is regulation. For example, in NJ, basically I can sell what I use but can’t sell much more than I use. That means I really can’t put my acreage into solar. So I would have to revamp my house to all electric and that ain’t happening anytime soon. Pretty hard to do in an 1865 model home.

    • Joseph S. Bruder

      Mr. Van Raalte – you’ve cited all the scare tactics of the oil and coal industries. Solar power is already cheaper than coal and just about on par with oil. Technology over the last 40 years has made huge leaps and gains. I have worked in the solar industry, and my house is off-grid solar powered. Let me run some basic calculations by you…

      Contrary to popular belief, the average sunlight doesn’t change much from one part of the country to the other. It’s generally about 4-6 hours of full sunlight per day on average throughout the year. Full sunlight is 1000W per square meter (although I’ve seen it get higher, especially on a bright sunny winter day.)

      The google says that the usage of electricity in the US is about 4 trillion kilowatt-hours. A solar panel, on average through the year generates 5 hours of power a day for 365 days. So, divide 4 T KW-h by (5 x 365) and it turns out you need 2B KW (= 2Trillion watts) of installed panels.

      With a 20% panel, 1 square meter of panel will generate 200 watts. That means solar panels required to support the US electricity needs would cover about 10B square meters, or (again, according to the google) about 4231 square miles. Since it’s hard to pack anything 100%, let’s double that and round off, and we’re at about 10,000 square miles.

      That’s the size of a smallish northeastern state – say Vermont, New Hampshire, or Massachusetts. A relatively empty western state (Nevada, for example) is roughly 10 times bigger. So, an area of about 1/10 of Nevada (which is mostly desert) could generate enough power for the whole country.

      There are issues, of course. The US grid is split into 3 major areas, East, West, and Texas (which is not connected to the rest of the country, and they pay for it in reliability). Getting power from Nevada to the coasts would be challenging because the grid is outdated and overloaded. The numbers are yearly averages, which means you need storage for about (on average) 4-5 days. Plus, the cost of panels is currently down around 10 to 25 cents per watt (for cheap Chinese panels), which means an investment of somewhere around a half-trillion dollars. Installing that many panels would bring US prices down to the level of cheap Chinese panels, but it may take government incentives to jump start demand. But once you install the panels, the fuel is free. Let’s say the investment to go 100% solar (including installation costs, equipment and batteries) is maybe 4-5 trillion dollars. Spread over 10 years, that’s about 10% of what the US government takes in.

      It sounds like big fucking numbers when you look at it nationally… but there are (getting close to) 400 million people in the US, and when you divide it down, it’s not that bad.

      To me, that sounds like a bargain. We reduce air pollution from coal and oil to almost nothing. We are no longer dependent on world oil markets, and rogue countries like the Russians or the Saudis can’t blackmail us by witholding their oil. The fuel is free and unlimited. Electric vehicles would (and eventually will) increase the amount of overall power usage, but an electric motor is more efficient and cheaper to make than a gasoline engine.

      On a home level, the calculations are the same… The number above divided by population gives us about 15 kw-h per day per person, so the average family of four would use about 60KW-h per day, and need about 10-12 KW of panels. 10 KW of solar panels covers about 500 square feet, about the footprint of a medium sized house. At cheap Chinese rates, that’s about $2500 worth of panels, and you’d probably spend another $15000 on equipment and batteries. But $20,000 is what, maybe 5-10% of the cost of building a new house? You put in all kinds of appliances in a new house anyway, why not finance the solar panels at the same time? And get free fuel to run the house, instead of a $200 per month electricity bill? And if the grid goes down, you’ve got enough storage for 4-5 days, right? You won’t freeze or lose a refrigerator full of food or sit in the dark.

      The US is the largest generator of greenhouse gases, so it definitely helps climate change for us to cut down our emissions. But, even ignoring climate change, and what China and India do (and forget Russia, it’s a large country with a small economy), doesn’t it make sense, just for the other advantages, to go full solar? Cheaper power, cleaner air and water, no reliance on world energy markets, better reliability, no dependence on hostile countries for energy, cheaper electric cars and appliances? Let’s stop looking at the initial cost of installing solar, and look at all the other costs AND benefits.

  4. Rick

    I disagree that government should tell us where we can build and where we cannot build. The government is already way to involved in that. If a corner of a 5 acre lot gets wet during the rainy season, you cannot use your own land. You could camp on it for a short time, but the all powerful government will not give a permit to use any of your 5 acres. Not the governments 5 acres, your 5 acres. You can’t have a well or a septic or build a building. Unless that is, you go through a very expensive mitigation process that most regular people cannot afford. That whole thing came out of the agenda 21 fiasco that is designed to move people out of the rural areas into the cities. I think the insurance industry is the way to regulate that. If you cannot get insurance, or it is super expensive, people wont be so ready to build in those dangerous areas. Some regulation as to building stronger structures in a dangerous area does make sense. The government should stay out of interfering with land that gets a little wet spot when it rains for days and days. Most humans know to not build on that part of their land.

    I think we are beginning to move into a cooling period because our sun is going into a time of calming. It is called solar minimum. The sun is not constant. It has periods of violence and periods of calm. Real scientist have discovered that the earth has gone through mini ice ages back before man ever had anything to do with it. The bought science does not take that into consideration because well, that would ruin their whole game. The global cabal always uses invisible things like viruses or bought climate science as a means to their total control agenda. Those freaks have all the money in the world, and they have bought all the material things that money can buy, so they are bored and need to get their thrills from owning and controlling people. Sadly, it seems that close to half of the people like being controlled because that way they don’t have to think very much or make many decisions on their own.

    There is too much money in the climate change hoax to stop pouring out the fear. Plus, the ability to control people through that hoax is outstanding. The young people have been brainwashed in the tax payer funded indoctrination centers. They actually believe that in ten years the earth will be uninhabitable and they are all going to die. A young empty mind is very easy to fill with lies and propaganda. They figured that out a long time ago and have taken full advantage. All of us, when we are young, think that we know everything, and certainly more than our parents. It is only with life experience and some hard learned lessons that we come to the realization that we do not know much at all. In the whole scheme of things, we really don’t know diddly squat. How I wish that I would have written some of that knowledge down, back when I was younger and knew so much more than I know now.

    • frank stetson

      Agenda 21 is a non-binding global initiative AGENDA started in 1992 that challenges local governments to create their own agenda. You got a problem with local government?

      There is no US law codified around Agenda 21. Bush signed it and created an EO to create a plan. They did.

      In the US, 528 cities, Dems and Repubs, have initiated local actions, none of which will affect your five acres.

      Not quite sure what you mean?

      And you are damned sure there is money in combating climate change, real or imagined. I tell young folks everywhere, solar enegy is an industry for a lifetime right now with pretty clean jobs at all levels from rocket-scientist engineer to rooftop installer. All much better than working in the coal mines and a broad range of salaries.

      Or you can deny it like Rick.

      We are at a point where we can accelerate and expand or obstruct and slow down. But the Rick’s of this world can not stop it. That notion is over.

      • Rick

        You are wrong about the government not affecting the usage of peoples land. Maybe it is a localized thing, but I almost bought a dead horse (land) years ago. The realtor would have sold it to me without ever telling me about it and then you own a piece of land that you cannot use and have to try to sell it to some other unsuspecting person. If a small part of the land gets wet during the rainy season, they label the entire property as wet lands., and will not give you a permit to do anything with your land. Fortunately, I went to the government offices in that county and found it out before I bought the land.

        I’m not sure why you think I am against solar panels. I just don’t want them forced on me. When solar panels get good enough, people will want to buy it without being strong armed into it. That is the problem with liberalism. Since you are a liberal, you think everyone should have what you think they should have. And if you do not like something, then you will do everything you can using the liberal hive mind to make it so that no one can have what you don’t like.
        I have been looking at some solar panels and am strongly considering buying some. These new panels are designed so that even if half of the panel is in shade it still produces power, plus each panel produces 550 watts. So they are getting better with the technology. Leave the people alone. I think liberalism is the dumbest thing ever, but I will buy solar when I feel it is advance enough. Also as one writer above mentioned, their are problems with solar and wind turbines when it comes to recycling them when their life is over, so it is not perfectly clean when you consider those issues.

        I kind of agree that the stupid path we are on cannot be stopped, and that is because of the many young people that are brainwashed and are now cheerleaders for the global cabal. Our country is in deep trouble because of liberalism and all of their many dumb ideas. Liberals think you can power a country with fairy dust and unicorn farts. They want to force technology’s before they are perfected.

        All of these things will happen over time as the technology’s are perfected. You cannot just flip a switch and change to fairy dust overnight. Well you can but a lot of people will freeze to death and many other bad things will happen like starvation when production comes to a halt because the fairy dust isn’t cutting it and the other reliable sources of power have been shut down.

        • frank stetson

          Perhaps I am less clear, although I think you may have some wires crossed in your thinking.

          First, I never said laws and regulations don’t affect land usage, people or business. You said it was Agenda 21 and I showed that may be at the city level, but not at the local levels that I know of.

          Second, you shifted gears here and began speaking about a land deal where you could be screwed due to not knowing the nature of the land, and it’s constraints due to law. Sure, that can happen, but in most states it’s illegal to withhold this type of information. Against industry ethics too. Sure, can happen, and there are loopholes, but usually if it does, you have legal recourse and you should win. This is a case where government, aka the law, actually helps you with this issue.

          No one is forcing you to have solar panels that I know of. We liberals did pass some bills during Obama to provide capital to solar companies and to provide tax credits to taxpayers for solar, other energy efficiency improvements. No one was FORCED to do anything in these programs. The solar investment program worked, solar sales skyrocketed and your government made a profit on the loans even after the Solyndra loss was added in. I used the tax credits to upgrade my ac, better insulate my attic, and buy a hybrid under cash for clunkers. It was like getting 10% off.

          And I like to see government step in where business fears to tread. You chime in on the traditional conservative idea of waiting for the market. I feel government can step in and help to kick-start good things not happening fast enough. If Obama had not energized the solar industry we clearly wouldn’t have the acceptance curve and sales ramp that we have today. Even Trump not doing anything could stop what Obama’s program had kick-started. Big things that business won’t tackle is where government can help. The hard part is having all of us decide what to do, as a country, and hopefully picking more winners than losers in the process.

          These programs were liberal, they were good, and one even turned a profit for the taxpayer. They didn’t force anything on anyone, they incentivize folks to do the right things. Of course we can all debate the “rightness” of it and who are the winners and who are the losers. Like I win because I had the cash to invest, a poorer person may not be able to come up with the scratch to take advantage of them. But they are not as you described, they didn’t force anything. I like those types of liberal, and conservative, programs.

          But I agree, most law and regulations constrain you or compel you to do something. Compel as in force. But that’s true whether it’s liberal or conservative. Donald Trump, for example, gave many people a tax break, he compelled me to pay more literally taking money out of my pocket that no other President (government) had done. And he did it based on my property basically punishing me for owning too much and living in NJ.

          And you seem to indicate that solar is not reliable. Frankly, there’s less to go wrong here than with coal, gas, or nuclear, so not quite sure what you are thinking on that one.

          I will skip the brainwashed, cabal, liberalism rants since you have no proof.

          FYI: an aside, but my land has wetlands, way down in a place I do not go. But during a tax reassessment, I added them to my argument and am one of a handful of NJians that had their property taxes go down. Pretty funny for land I just use as a buffer zone.

          Hope that clarifies and helps but I think you are mixing some apples n oranges in your thinking on this. Yes, government constrains, but government can help do things individuals and business can’t. I favor a hand up or any hand outs but the devil in the details is picking those things we all agree should be done. That’s really hard as our discussion on climate change shows.

  5. Tom

    I agree Larry but I do wish you would cite where your land/see carbon statistics came from so I could read the article. I do believe we are warming this planet but I do not see it as the catastrophe that many say it is. I remember all the way back in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s a set of data came out from the scientific community saying the planet was warming. Three to six months after that data was release, a separate report was published where it was noted that the conclusions based on the data were wrong because Greenland temperature statistics had conveniently been omitted from the data set. And had they included Greenland’s statistics, the conclusions might have been different. Then fast forward to early 2000 and Tennessee’s favorite son Al Gore and his book “An Inconvenient Truth:. While Al Gore was telling everyone to not take planes, ride bikes instead of cars to work, cut down electric usage in the home, he himself was taking private jets to lectures instead of riding coach on an airliner, and a report was published on his mansion and how much energy usage was going on – all lights on day and night, etc. And now there is much chatter about not having children because of increasing the carbon footprint, cows farting cause a terrible carbon footprint to the point where Netherlands have begun taxing dairy farmers. And then I look at the California fires, Australian fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. (and there are many eruptions under the sea that we never see). California’s 2020 wildfire season thwarted the state’s fight against climate change, spewing enough carbon dioxide into the air to equal the emissions of millions of passenger vehicles driving over the course of a year. Those roughly 9,600 fires burned nearly 4.2 million acres, killed 31 people, and emitted an estimated 112 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to a California Air Resources Board report released Dec. 31. Another report cited that ss of Sept. 15, California fires had generated more than 91 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is about 25% of the state’s annual emissions from fossil fuels.The number is akin to the greenhouse gas emissions of 24.2 million passenger cars driving in a single year. What is Gavin Newsome doing with all of that Federal money given to California to clean up their forests???? See

    I think if we all just do our part to be aware of our carbon footprint, and to minimize it with reasonable efforts, we could do quite a lot to get the world back in balance without any pain. I have switched to electric chain saws, electric lawn mowers, hybrid car (which sucks because it is sitting on my driveway broken and very expensive to repair), driving less and doing more on line, cans over plastics where possible, I do not burn leaves in the fall like some of my neighbors, I do not cut down trees since they are carbon traps, and last but in no way least, I try to fart less.

    We should all be aware of our carbon footprint. Our government spends billions on fighting over this issue while spending almost nothing to guide our population on how to personally reduce carbon emissions and green house gases. So I have taken it upon myself to get educated! Anyone wishing to know their footprint can calculate it at

  6. joeyP

    So . . . since the CO2 level has been WAY up during the Jurassic period, what were the DINOSAURS driving? So called “Climate Change” is NOT a CRISIS but a natural PHENOMENON. And, the Ice Caps have been restored as well as the earth has been COOLED. AND these climate alarmists have been warning us the EARTH will end in 12 years – 50 YEARS ago?!? Why, we were going to FREEZE to DEATH when I was driving my ’67 Ford Mustang (289 V8 . . . yeah!). Uhhh . . . REALLY?!?

    • Sam

      I love climate change. It’s a great thing. I try to cause it as much as possible. No electric cars for me. That’s for pussies

  7. f

    Good day and top of the morning to you Larry. Well, at least it’s morning as I pen this tome.

    It’s good to see you leave the Dark Side and come into the light. Yet, in sum, I have to say: THANK YOU Captain Obvious for telling us you agree there is Global Warming, that it is man-made, or man-inspired, and that we should do something about it. Great accomplishment…..

    HOWEVER, you avoided the gorilla on the table: check me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Republican Party does not endorse your beliefs, facts, or conclusions.

    You recommend a number of great things none of which are supported by most Republicans. It’s easy to say don’t build on the beach, hillsides, and be sure to put in your weather-hardened bunkers, but I am pretty sure that codifying it near impossible with Republicans obstructing every green bill there is. It will take all of us advocating change.

    You hint that others, probably Democrats, are overzealous. Have you seen the result of that: Biden one of the first to do anything major in years at the Federal Level and he just gets shits from Republicans and told it’s not enough by Progressives. Where’s the overzealous except in the air?

    But again, good to see you take another bold step to distance yourself from the Joe’s, Tuckers, Trumplicants and even the Republican Party. Good luck with avoiding the RINO smear :>)

    On your topic: yes, it’s 10%. You make it sound small, you seem to deflect it by saying the 90% that is recycled by nature is equal to the 10% that is totally caused by the activities of man and is the ONLY CO2 that is not recycled and it is changing the planet’s climate. As George Carlin says: we won’t kill the planet, we will just kill ourselves. The planet will be fine.

    Was that your intent when you left out —- it’s 10% over the tipping point? It’s 10 percent past the inflection point? It’s also 10% and rising……rapidly? It’s ten percent across the globe as in: we can’t fix it without global support? Nope, that might make it pertinent to act, act fast, and act in a meaningful way.

    Here’s a very easy read explaining the 10%, where it comes from, etc. The MOST IMPORTANT part is the trend line. If you think 10% a nit, then follow the trend line…… that bitch ain’t plateauing and reversing course at any time soon. The 10% crisis is upon us. NOW!

    Think of it as you are filing your gas tank with a lit candle 20 feet away downhill. What is the priority of not putting 10% extra gas than the gas tank can hold. Sure, argumentum ad absurdum, but you get the point. Too much is over the top and then bad things happen.

    There are two recommendations: pollute less and protect more.

    “Most folks agree that reducing man-made carbon emissions is a good idea. Every little bit helps. But can we cut back sufficiently to reverse the greenhouse effect without plunging mankind back into the Stone Age?” I concur with your first statement, but you presuppose what you know little about in the second. You CAN reverse the greenhouse effect while moving forward, not backwards, and without breaking the bank. I have done it myself, I have significantly cut my footprint while having more light, heat, highway speed, whatever. I am sure others have too. I am sure Nations can do it to.

    At the 26th Conference of Parties (COP) UN climate conference in Glasgow, India announced itwill achieve net-zero emissions by 2070

    A total of 137 countries, covering 80% of global emissions pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by the year 2050.
    The United Kingdom is the first major economy to enact net-zero legislation in 2019.

    Five more countries approved net-zero legislation in January 2021: Sweden, France, Denmark, New Zealand, and Hungary, all with a 2050 goal date except Sweden (2045).

    The European Union also set out its net-zero target for 2050 in its European Green Deal published in December 2019.

    So, you see Larry, it can be done, things can be better, other countries have done it and they don’t exist in the stone age. Here’s the total report card; the US, under Biden, is in a much better position today, and for the future.,Germany%2C%20Sweden%20and%20South%20Korea.

    Great story Larry, perhaps one of your best IMO, glad you agree it’s real. Now WE, as a nation, need to take more actions. Joe’s is but a drop in the bucket. But please don’t minimize the problem as only a 10% issue when, in fact, it IS 100% of the issue.

    • larry Horist

      f (Frank)… why you coming here incognito? I think you stretched my comments beyond there meaning. I have been to conferences on both sides of the issue and virtually EVERYONE aggress that the earth has warmed in recent years. Democrats keep saying that is the point of contention … and the media carries the false message. the difference is how much is the result of man … and what can reasonably be done about it. The lest is relying on false accusations as a political strategy. There are very positive trends. The US is been reducing emissions for the past 20 years. Also, in the past 20 years, the ocean has increased its carbon absorption — which may be the way nature adjusts to change. And I still believe the the hyper fearmongering campaign is not dealing with reality and therefore not being very beneficial in dealing with the actual problem and the reasonable options to address it. You either did not comprehend my commentary or your are intentionally twisting my opinion to better suit yours.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Larry, why is it that you feel you have to check people’s email addresses and “expose” them if it doesn’t meet your liking? This website has a tendency to screw up names, but if Frank wants one message to be anonymous, is it your job to prevent that?

        Are you going to play traffic cop? If there are two Bobs, are you going to interject after each message and say “this is not the same Bob that just answered above”? Or answer them with “Bob #1” and “Bob #2”? I never got that courtesy when someone appropriated my screen name… but you’ve outed me several times in your letter replies.

        • Frank stetson

          It was a freakin typo just like the scores in Larry’s above…. How many times has he screwed up his own name ——whoreist???

          There tishit…

          Think i’ll pass on your word salad, can’t unravel that mess. .

          • larry Horist

            Frank Stetson …. LOL … This post suggests you are unraveled. Turning my name and signature into childish insults is … oh … childish. Now sure when I screwed up my name. Youi just make shit up again?

        • larry Horist

          Joseph S. Bruder. First of all, I never expose anyone’s email addresses — as you so wrongfully implied. But, I think if people want to be deceitful as to they are, the readers should know that it is the same person under a false flag. And actually, I have made distinctions between two folks with the same screen name. It avoids confusion and intentional deception. As far as you name being taken, I do not recall noticing it. If I had, I would have made the distinction in a reply.

          • Joseph S. Bruder

            I did not say that you exposed my email address, although Gilbertson did expose part of my email address in one of his replies. What I said is you check email addresses and say “hey, this is from Joseph S Bruder, not “X”. And you’ve done it several times. When Frank’s signature came up as “F”, you had to go an tell the world that “this is really Frank, incognito”. Calling him icognito is an accusation. You have no respect for anonymity or your readers..

            I have had others appropriate my nom-de-plume on this website, complained to Gilbertson, and got back a “so what?”. You didn’t feel the need to say “this isn’t the real Joseph S Bruder” when that happened. When Gilbertson exposed part of my email (enough to identify me), again “so what?”.

            I’ve also had people on this website say “hey, you seem like a cool guy, we should meet up in real life”, when A. His writings clearly showed he was a RWNJ. B. I don’t want anything to do with that person, and C. I’d be scared for my family if he had my real address. In fact, there are many people on this website who I would be worried about if they had my real identity, martial arts belts and a double barrelled shotgun in the closet notwithstanding.

            And if someone wants to separate their opinions into different personas, whether it’s out of deceit or for a different reason, why do you have to police it? If they have opinions, let them stand on their own. There are people who use their full names and people who use a screen name. Are you going to insist that everyone use their full names? If I decided to change my screen name, would you preface every one of my letters with “this used to be Joseph S Bruder”… How long would you do that? Is there a reason for it?

    • frank stetson

      f = frank stetson, as if the passage length didn’t say it all……. not sure what happened, but it’s JG’s fault :>)