Great blog!

First of all, I believe strongly in reducing pollution and taking care of our environment. Living by a busy road causes real health problems. But the simple truth is, humans are responsible for about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. So, at about 405 parts per million CO2, we are responsible for about 12 ppm. Below around 250 ppm, plants struggle. It’s common to raise it to 1,200 ppm in a greenhouse to dramatically increase production, with no downside. The 12 ppm we produce, it has been estimated, increases food production enough to feed several million people. I’ve read that it is responsible for $200,000,000,000 in food, but am skeptical of that claim. At any rate, the CO2 in the air changes dramatically depending on where you measure it and the local season. Plants suck it up dramatically. It is a self-setting system. Additionally, the small influence CO2 has on weather is not linear. If a certain amount is responsible for a 1 degree difference, doubling the CO2 does NOT cause a 2 degree difference. It would be 1/2 a degree. If we DOUBLED the CO2 we produce, brought it up to 417 ppm, the impact on weather would be miniscule, but plants would thrive. THE ONLY CLIMATE MODELS WITH ANY ACCURACY WERE BASED ON THE SUN CYCLES (weather on the sun). Cows farting have absolutely nothing to do with the cycles the sun goes through.

This ‘climate change’ insanity is nothing but a power grab by the liberal elite. It is DISGUSTING! This liberal insanity is not confined to ‘climate change.’ These constant attacks against our President is an attempt to invalidate my vote. Talk about a constitutional crisis! Invalidating elections because an election has thwarted their globalist agenda is the biggest constitutional crisis our country has ever faced. They are trying to rip this country apart. THEY WILL NOT SUCCEED.

Ed, you stated the truth of a very complex situation, very well.
The only constant in nature IS change. The climate has always changed. Thinking that we mere humans can drive our planetary climate, to some vague perfected state, IS unnatural, and frankly very frightening. We don’t understand the inner workings of Earth’s climate, we can barely accurately predict tomorrows weather, much less the climate for 20 years in advance. To think that these same professional can actually steer the climate is shear lunacy.
It will be our abilities to adapt and technically meet our future needs that will save our species, if we don’t implode our societies via antisocial media and sensationalized editorials sold as news. Or the overpowering of society by some form of government taxation and micromanagement.
Our future should be all about upholding individual rights, for ALL individuals, even those we disagree with and allowing each of us respect and the freedom to make our own choices and chart our own paths through life.
Thank you for speaking your mind and trying to enlighten others, as well as trying to extend the quality of our lives.

Ed, Ed, Ed…. I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am in your comments about climate change. I have dedicated the last 30 years of my life to both environmental activism and conservation. To say that your statement that the people who advocate for addressing anthropogenic climate change are part of a cult is off-putting in the extreme.
It baffles me how climate change deniers can contend that a desire to address the very real problem is a nefarious plot to get rich off of the solutions (cap and trade for example) when the reality is that billions of dollars are being spent by the corporations and individuals who are benefitting from the fossil fuel industries. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll
It is not just climate change. Our food supply is now replete with micro-plastics, glyphosates and other industrial by-products. Our pollinators are dying off in apocalyptic numbers. Millions of species will go extinct over the next few decades if measures are not taken to reverse the trends. The excess carbon in the atmosphere winds up in the oceans is destroying the coral reefs. This is just part of the litany of problems caused by an out-of-control consumer economy and non-renewable, non-sustainable industries.
Let’s look at the reality of the situation. We now have 415 ppm carbon in the atmosphere. The earth has never experienced this level before. The highest it ever got was 410 ppm. At that time, the earth’s temperature was 15 degrees warmer and the oceans were 25 meters deeper! So the IPCC stated goal of limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees is laughable. Most of the excess heat and carbon are accumulating in the oceans which turn over every 1,500 years. So even if we were to magically convert to 100% renewable energy this afternoon, there is still the problem of all that heat and carbon to address.
I do agree that some of the proposed technological solutions are ludicrous and have a hidden agenda. Having said that, we now know how to reverse the damage that we have done since the industrial age began. Our current conventional agricultural systems are nonsustaining. That is not debatable. We are losing top soil at a rate where in about 55 years it will all be gone. Ag also contributes about a quarter of the carbon released into the atmosphere. The solution is to convert from chemical fertilizers to organic mulch and biochar addendums. Soil can easily store 50 tons of carbon per acre and intensive gardening can store up to 800 tons per acre. Holistic management would restore the grasslands of the Midwestern USA, African veldt and the steppes of Russia and the Ukraine.
We also need to plant trees (not plantations) and allow forests to regenerate. There are at least 350 million hectares just in Latin America that if allowed to regrow would pull massive quantities of carbon down from the atmosphere.
I could go on and on discussing wetlands, mangrove forests, coral reefs, etc., but would rather that you do some research on these yourself.
IMO we do not need to get back to pre-industrial carbon levels of about 270 ppm. In fact, scientists were probably correct that we actually were headed into another ice age in the 1970’s. It was only the massive release of carbon into the atmosphere that changed the trajectory. Lowering atmospheric carbon to 350 ppm should do the trick. Note that these low-tech solutions also reverse species loss, clean up our food supply, protect fisheries, and solve a lot of other quality of life problems.
By implementing these steps we buy ourselves a decade to get off fossil fuels. The reality is that renewables are now more than competitive with oil, coal and natural gas IF their politically corrupt subsidies are removed.
Finally, I am anything but an easily manipulated individual. I have worked in this field most of my adult life. The people who are doing the oftentimes thankless work of trying to reverse the very real negative trends are some of the most courageous, selfless independent thinkers that I know. Lumping them into a category of cultists is really misguided at best. I encourage you to get out and meet some of them in the field. I have always respected your intellect and ethics. This blog was a real surprise to me.