Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, March 25, 2019

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

President Trump’s spoken thoughts on climate change layer ignorance over irresponsibility. They humiliate thinking Americans and frustrate our friends. The president’s recent refusal in Europe to commit to sticking with the Paris accord for curbing planet-warming gas emissions is the latest national embarrassment.

Trump did say he’d come up with an answer in a week, and if he has by the time you read this, the decision won’t entirely matter. Even if we stay in, few allies trust Trump, given his penchant for cheating.

But though the presidency is powerful, it’s not all-powerful. There are workarounds, and they’re already in motion. German Chancellor Angela Merkel alluded to the possibilities Sunday, when she called on Europe to basically give up on Trump’s America: “We Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands.”

Team Trump should drop any fantasy that other nations would bear the burden of addressing the climate change crisis while letting Americans belch greenhouse gases willy-nilly. A former French president has already called for slapping U.S. products with a carbon tax if Trump goes AWOL on the Paris agreement.

The sovereign state of California, however, could have a better deal. California has been establishing its own foreign policy on climate. And why wouldn’t it?

It is from this seat of power that Gov. Jerry Brown takes obvious delight in taunting Trump and the climate ignoramuses around him. “Erasing climate change may take place in Donald Trump’s mind,” Brown quipped, “but nowhere else.”

When Trump vowed in March to loosen national emissions standards for cars and trucks, California’s clean air agency immediately vowed to tighten its standards. Twelve other states have followed California on emissions, resulting in its rules covering over a third of the U.S. market for vehicles.

For historical reasons, California can set its own standards under a federal waiver. Trump could revoke the waiver, as George W. Bush’s administration tried to do in 2007. California would undoubtedly sue.

California is also leading America — and most other “countries” — in establishing advanced cap-and-trade programs to limit carbon emissions. It recently sent a delegation to China to help it do likewise.

State lawmakers are now devising a far more sophisticated cap-and-trade program that could become a model to the world. California critics continue to insist that this progressive governance is ruining the state’s economy. That’s funny, considering that California currently has the highest rate of job growth in the country.

Trump world, meanwhile, pumps out one indignity after another. How pathetic was economic adviser Gary Cohn’s dog-ate-his-homework excuse for Trump’s not having decided on the Paris deal? “The president’s only been in office for a certain period of time,” Cohn explained. Like the grown-ups haven’t been agonizing over this for more than two years.

Washington is clearly becoming flyover country for governments formulating smart environmental policy. But conscientious Americans need not lose hope over the accumulating signs of national decline. They can continue working with one another and with other governments to forestall environmental catastrophe — or at least they can try.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

 

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 103

54 responses to “We Can Move Past Trump On Climate Change”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    The biggest challenge for the defender of fossil fuels and unregulated pollution, is not the Paris Accord, but the fact that the momentum created by President Obama cannot be stopped. The U.S. industry understands the logic of preparing for climate change, reducing pollution, and at the same time profiting from the opportunities afforded by endeavors such as solar and wind energy, a lot better than Trump does.

    • VulpineMac says:

      Like I said above, with US industry, they may need to see where it would cost more to backslip than it would to maintain or continue moving forward.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        We have no choice. With the rest of the world well on its way to rely on solar and wind for home energy requirements, we either continue to move forward, or we will be left behind. It will be a long time before we rid ourselves of fossil fuels, but the fact that there are more efficient, and often cheaper, options is undeniable.

        • VulpineMac says:

          While I agree with what you say, that doesn’t mean corporate America will. Too many of them would love to reduce costs by effectively turning off expensive installations and perhaps even trying to remove them. The average person has little concept of what the CEOs are thinking despite how cost cutting has crippled and destroyed so many businesses over the decades. That’s why I say these people need to be appraised of the monetary costs involved with trying to backslide outside of strictly internal costs. Remind them that they will lose customers and income as well.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Too many corporations can and have gotten sued. Remember Love Canal? Remember the huge Johns Mansville lawsuit over the asbestos that caused cancer?

            I know what CEOs think because I worked very closely with 4 of them, two from Fortune 50 companies.

            CEOs do not care about human life. The morons at Nestle’s are proof of that. They managed to take control of the water in that state to the extent that there is now a water shortage for the states’ residents. The CEO jerk there said, “Water isn’t a human right.”

            No and neither is a tax cut and tax subsidy for corporations who don’t value our hard earned tax dollars.

          • dpaano says:

            It’s not a “corporate right” either, am I not correct?

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            That’s true. No where in the US Constitution does it state that our taxes must be handed to businesses of any kind.

            This mess began when the military realized they needed more supplies like planes and weapons and had to rely on mass production. The government began to allow our tax dollars to be used to pay these military suppliers like Boeing, KBR and Blackwater. And let’s not forget Big Oil who supplies fuel to the military. So you can see why the Republican Party today is demanding 65% of our taxes go to the military.

            That only opened the door to massive collusion between crony corporations and politicans in states like Virginia, which is No. 1 in all of the miltiary industrialist trough feeders.

            These states have come to rely so heavily on war that if there was a 20 year period of peace, they’d end up as broke as they were after they lost the Civil War.

          • dpaano says:

            Probably why Trump and his minions are so eager to start a war with North Korea…..only problem is that North Korea will send missiles directly to the U.S., something that’s never been done since Pearl Harbor.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Back in the late 70s when he was the Wonder Boy Daddy Fred spawned on the planet, he made a statement that forever after told me where his true direction was, “Fear is Power.”

            Then, he made that statement to intimidate a land owner who refused to turn over his property in NY to Trump who tried to have it taken by eminent domain. Then Mayor of NY refused to allow such a blatant act of aggressive takeover. Then, Trump let fly with constant subtle statements like that one.

            From that point on, he and the Helmsleys were like two warring factions in the hotel and real estate industry in that state.

            So, right now Trump thinks he is intimidating North Korea. Already, my sister-in-law who lives on the CA coast says that state is readying for the possibility of a missile strike.

            It is a well known fact that Trump resents the Hollywood patina that has always ingored him. So, if CA is attacked, don’t look for him to be concerned in the least. Now, if his Trump Tower was attacked, you can bet he’d be pushing the code buttons for WW3.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The apparent determination of the Trump administration to support the oil and coal industries, at the expense of investment in solar and wind technologies will also impact our ability to compete on the world stage, with countries that are profiting from the development of systems that are becoming increasingly popular worldwide.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Trump’s plan is to cut off all ties to Europe while he befriends and rewards nations that are our enemies.

            We cannot make friends with a country that gave us 9 of the 11 terrorists who killed nearly 4,000 Americans on 9/11 from Saudi Arabia. Trump has already decided to repeal the legislation that would have forced Saudi Arabia to pay families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11. Shows how much patriotism this scumbag Trump does NOT have.

            Then, he wants us to pretend the Russians didn’t hack into our election and make nicey nicey with them.

            So now, Chancellor Merkel and the rest of our NATO allies are publicly stating they will not rely on the US for cooperation in any NATO alliance. Meaning, if Russia starts to become overly aggressive in its push toward eastern European states, they know Trump will not lift a finger to cooperate against Russia.

            Look at what he and the Republicans have REALLY done: They have now isolated the US from our allies by his snubs and insults and put us in closer ties with two countries who are responsible for actions against our Constitution…TREASON much?

            The Republicans own this mess. But they are too busy trying to cover up their part in the Russian hacking they and Trump are hoping they can shove under a rug.

            Do that and no election will be needed ever again.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            What happened during the NATO meeting, and what is going to happen if Trump decides to renege on our commitment to the terms and conditions of the Paris Climate Accord is that we will cede the leadership role we have played since, at least, the end of WWII to our adversaries. Chancellor Merkel understands the danger of Trump fixation with isolationism, and she is likely to pursue the establishment of a European Defense apparatus to protect the Old Continent from Russian expansionism, while the USA watches the world order we helped create fall apart. The saddest part of all this is that there are still millions of Americans that support Trump, and see nothing wrong with what he is proposing or doing.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Dom, It can be stopped by states rights. The Federal laws are equal to state laws. But, Here in NJ, we have often exceeded federal laws with regard to pollution and sued states that were costing our states for clean up.

      Trump doesn’t have the last say on everything. He alienates. He never engenders a spirit of comraderie unless there’s a profit to be had.

  2. FireBaron says:

    Looking at this, I cannot help but note the obvious dichotomy. The GOP members of Congress and the GOP Governors of States scream that many functions should be up to the individual States to set their own local standards. As soon as a Democratic Governor starts developing standards that other States adopt, those self-same Federalists scream that THOSE States MUST comply with Federal Standards and not impose their own more strict interpretations.
    I guess that means States’ Rights and Federalism (well, the 21st Century NeoCon definition, not that of Hamilton, Burr and Madison) can only apply when the GOP is in charge of that State.

  3. VulpineMac says:

    Civil disobedience is not illegal. Just because our ‘President’ says we can pollute more doesn’t mean we have to. Even in corporate mind-think, it would cost more to backtrack than it would to maintain what we currently have. Efforts to advance may slow or even stop for a bit but any backwards movement would probably not show until after someone else is in office who could reverse all of the present Administration’s policies.
    No, I’m not saying, “wait and see”, I’m saying each of us can do our own parts towards improving our climate and put pressure on those trying to fall back on old ways. If necessary, corporate heads will need to realize the added expense of removing systems already in place.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Actually, it doesn’t even have to come to Civil Disobedience. Some righties love to do what Trump once stated publicly: “To make power effective, you have to create fear.” Fall for that BS and you see why Trump is an aberration.

      Every state government cannot be overuled by the Federal government. This is what the Constitution guarantees: states rights.

      That means that states can exceed or change existing federal regulations at any time if they are imposed on states by the federal government.

      One of the ways we can do our part to protect the environment is to stop buying synthetic foods and grow your own in a small patch or in a container garden in your apartment. Learn to recycle and buy only those products that are biodegradable and recyclable.

      This forces corporations to wake up and smell the fear.

      • VulpineMac says:

        “That means that states can exceed or change existing federal regulations at any time if they are imposed on states by the federal government.”
        That’s a marginal statement, Eleanore. While states can exceed Federal regulations, they may not go below those Federal regulations. Most states choose to only meet the minimum requirement while some few have chosen to exceed those minimums and certain corporations don’t like it.

        So-called ‘synthetic foods’ are not necessarily a bad thing. I’m not saying they’re all good but a little reasoned investigation should be able to help us determine the good from the bad. For instance, HFCS or “Corn Sugar” is bad but genetically-modified corn itself may not be. Being able to determine the difference is important towards realizing what’s beneficial and what isn’t.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          Why tell me what I already know? Here in NJ, we exceeded federal EPA regulations when MI, IL and several other states refused to cut their pollution levels. What GWB did to help these states was to allow the biggest polluters who were paying the most for their pollution sources to sell their compliance credits to small companies who then did nothing to upgrade their industrial equipment to produce less pollution.

          The rule of law regarding state and federal law is that states are ONLY required to comply with the basis of federal laws and only “if” they apply to ALL states.

          As for synthetic foods, they are a bad thing. They are GMO processed and we already know that the FDA is not as strict about food additives as once they might have been.

          As I posted, I worked in environmental engineering and was exposed to daily EPA and NJDEP, NYDEC and PADER regulations in our tri state area.

          I know the difference between what is important towards realizing what’s beneficial and what isn’t and do not need a teacher. My Dad was a NJ farmer. I grew up learning how to live complete the plant cycle. Shall I give YOU instructions?

          • VulpineMac says:

            You obviously misunderstood. Your statement, as written, implied that states could undercut Federal regulations as well as exceed them, and that is not correct.

            And again, just because it is GMO doesn’t mean it’s bad. People need to make their own decisions on that matter. While some GMOs may be bad, not all are.

          • delete your account probably says:

            GMOs are thoroughly tested for at least a decade. New cultivars created by hybridization are not, and comprise a far larger genetic change.

            That’s why all the toxic crops that have been created in the last fifty years were “natural”.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Name the cultivars. All cultivars are created by using synthetic lab created hormones.

          • delete your account probably says:

            what

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            I posted that you need to name the “cultivars” that make GMO foods free of insect and disease. If you can’t stop pretending you know what you do not.

          • delete your account probably says:

            Yes, that is a collection of words that make no sense.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Here is what YOU posted:

            GMOs are thoroughly tested for at least a decade. New cultivars created by hybridization are not, and comprise a far larger genetic change.

            That’s why all the toxic crops that have been created in the last fifty years were “natural”.

            I then asked you to post the names of the cultivars. That is a collection of words that you are not going to be allowed to dodge since YOU brought up the subject.

          • delete your account probably says:

            Yes, I get that you have no idea what I said. That is the key problem with answering your non-question.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Yes..I get that you want to have the last word. Fine. But not the last WRONG word. I know more than you ever will about pollution, toxic waste, hazardous waste and underground tanks that leak leachate into soil and water. Grow up little moron.

            Just imagine folks if these nutbaggers all really had the brains they claim they have, we’d be off fossil fuels and have no pollution. Instead, their brains are so polluted that they swim in fossil fuel pollution right outside their back doors.

          • delete your account probably says:

            OK, sorry you don’t understand what words mean – not my problem. There is no secret death magic in GMOs, not matter how much you hate and fear science.

          • delete your account probably says:

            PS: no part of your inability to understand what “cultivar” means makes ME a moron.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Wrong. I’ll prove it. Name the organisms that create a GMO tomato. Unless you know what organisms are used in the lab to modify tomatoes, you have no idea what the overall effect on the human body can be, do you?

            Let’s say a microbiologist discovers he/she can produce 2 lb tomatoes. What do you suppose the microbiologist uses to enhance such an obnoxious and unnatural size tomato? The very same hormones often used to promote human hair growth.

            So, you eat a 2 lb. tomato every week for half of your life. You ingest the hormones from the tomato and you think there is NO effect?

          • VulpineMac says:

            Let me ask you one simple question, Elanore:

            Are you a microbiolgist?

            For the moment, you are making the error of assuming all microbiologists intentionally go out to screw over their fellow humans. Clearly you know no more than the rest of us. Technology, even at the genetic level, can be good, though I agree it can also be mis-used. But remember this: humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years. Not all of those modifications have been bad.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            No. I am not a microbiologist. But, I do have one question. Are you?

            No where in my posts did I slam ALL microbiologists, nor would I since at Akzo Chemie, I worked with 6 of them and at Ambient I worked with a female microbiolgist. My job as tech writer for engineering required me to know the details of how each new product was tested and created.

            Of course technology is good. Just not always good. When Johns Mansville techies created asbestos and ignored that it was a carcinogen after selling it for use on residential exterior siding, was that good technology?

            In my experience, mainly observing technical research in labs and QA/QC labs, money is always the bottom line of how much “research” any innovative tech company is willing to perform to get their ideas to market.

            Dr. Frankenstein in that famous novel is a great analogy that the most technical people do not have concrete evidence of efficacy of their latest modifications.

            Big Pharma is today’s best example of what goes wrong when drugs are allowed to be marketed with barest beta testing.

          • VulpineMac says:

            In other words, you don’t know any more than the rest of us, though you think that by expressing your experience as a tech writer you have an inside edge. Sorry, have to disagree. You wrote what you were told to write.

            I wasn’t a tech writer, I was an engineering tech. I was the one who had to make engineer’s designs work and test those designs. I was the one who often had to correct the original designer’s concept because he couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t working. In one specific case I had to suggest a change of both materials and method of attachment of a single component to make his product work the way it was intended. So yes, I’m fully aware that engineers, no matter the school, can and do make mistakes. That doesn’t mean it’s intentional.

            On the other hand, sometimes those mistakes result in something totally unexpected. ScotchGuard was a mistake. Teflon was a mistake. So many things we have today ultimately derived from a mistake. That doesn’t make them bad, now does it?

            And let me say this again: Humans have been performing Genetic Modification for millennia. Both of plants and animals.

          • VulpineMac says:

            Note: If I were you, I wouldn’t stand quite so proud on who you worked for. It seems even they have had their run-ins with governmental oversight. Granted that was years ago but it comes across as though they tried to own the GMO market.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Wrong again moron. Akzo Chemie, now Akzona is a Dutch company that has been in the US for more decades than you were shitting in your Pampers and has never had any run ins with the government for one reason: They don’t produce any but products used in your aluminum sidiung here in the US. Plasticizers was their main product and food grade quality plasticizers for your soda bottle. Eat your heart out moron.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Nice try at jacking YOUR massive Trump hump ego. I wrote operation and maintenance manuals using the MSME from Cambridge England’s design you can’t hope to compete with. He patented the now famous bio trickling filter.

            Why is it men like you with NO balls and dick no bigger than that Lard Ass in Chief’s thumb think all women can’t possibly be more intelligent than you?

            Okay, I challenge you to an intelligence duel. Tell me what the design of a biofiltration unit for VOCs contains.

            In case you missed it farthole. I didn’t sit at a desk all day typing. I worked right along with that PhD from MIT whose job it was to create the chemical engineering equations that kept our clients production and industrial processes in compliance with the daily EPA and state regulatory laws. Something a total loser like you can’t begin to know.

            You sound like one of Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Humans whose steroidal brain went awry. Get a life.

          • VulpineMac says:

            Careful girl, your panties are showing.

            Before getting all off on your anti-male rant, I would point out that at no time did I disparage your gender; I’ve been trying to point out that you might, just MIGHT be wrong about GMOs in general, even if some are bad. BUT, you are so, SO wrong on your rant about me as a person through stereotyping that you’ve totally discredited your arguments about GMOs. My “Nice try at jacking YOUR massive Trump hump ego,” was nothing but demonstrating that you aren’t the only person with engineering chops here and neither am I. SO CHILL YOUR JETS!

            Yes, I am fully aware of Akzo’s past and present as I actually bothered to look them up and read the ‘about’ page, along with noting the MANY different litigations they have been involved in over the years. Not all of them were so loyal as you, considering Beard v Akzona where an employee was supposedly fired for dating another employee. I’m not making any judgements on the case itself except to point out that that is just one of the suits that company faced around that time.

            Oh, and thank you for adding a few years to my expected lifespan; apparently I’m significantly older than you think I am.
            • Akzona Incorporated filed as a Foreign for Profit Corporation in the State of Florida and is no longer active. This corporate entity was filed approximately thirty-four years ago on Monday, May 2, 1983 , according to public records filed with Florida Department of State. It is important to note that this is a foreign filing. A foreign filing is when an existing corporate entity files in a state other than the one they originally filed in. This does not necessarily mean that they are from outside the United States.•

          • delete your account probably says:

            What does “GMO processed” mean? What additives?

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            GMO…Genetically Modified Organism. GMO processed simply means that many of the fruits and vegetables we purchased are genetically modified from “organism” that are created man made, not organically made by soil, water, air and sunlight.

            When my Dad planted NJ beefsteak tomatoes, he grew them from seeds. Not organisms created in a agricultural laboratory.

            As to additives, that depends on the specific plant species. As farmers knows, tomatoes prefer a somewhat acidic type of soil in which to grow. Potatoes do best in sandy, well drained soil that isn’t necessarily acidic of its own basic nature.

            In a laboratory, the types of additives would be those that are scientifically designed to produce hybrids such as those strange looking purple peppers and odd shaped and sized fruits.

          • delete your account probably says:

            Bad magic. Got it.

  4. jtberger says:

    Human ignorance knows no limits.
    Our real enemy is POLLUTION in all of its 101 insidious and destructive forms.
    co2 comprises only 1/25th of 1% of our atmosphere.
    Methane is only 1.8 parts per million.
    Anybody who supposes that co2 could exert even a minor influence on our weather or climate has to be totally brainwashed.
    co2 and methane are NOT OUR ENEMIES.
    The other major proof that significant climate change is NOT a reality is fact the our crops keep getting better and better with each passing decade….all over the world.
    Significant global warming and climate change is indeed the hoax of the 21st century.

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      Wrong. Anyone who knows compliance regulations in CFRs of the Federal Register would tell you that any toxic substance that exceeds normal levels of parts per billion can and will kill you.

      • jtberger says:

        You really must be kidding.
        Since when is co2 a toxic substance.?
        There are 101 man made toxic substances in our air water soils food etc. And people focus their attention on the only substance that is not harmful to any animal and is highly beneficial to all plants.
        Have you looked at a coal fired power plant lately.? Everything you see is a huge pollutant. So2 causes acid rain. etc. The co2 is invisible.
        Explain to me why our summers are cooler and our winters are warmer and our crops keep getting better and better.
        Such realities are totally incompatible with co2 being a significant agent in our weather or climate.
        Al Gore is a capable politician, but none of his dire predictions have come true.
        Weather records for the past 100 years have set reasonable parameters. Localized weahter extremes almost always fall within those parameters. Such weather extremes have always been with us and are not climate change.!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          Hey ignernt …Facts you won’t like:

          CO2:
          350-1,000ppm Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange
          1,000-2,000ppm Complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
          2,000-5,000 ppm Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.

          So time for you to put on your big boy pants and admit that when CO2 exceeds 5,000 PPMs, that heart rate can kill you, the nausea can cause ulcerative bleeding if your heart doesn’t race to your death first.

          Really? So NJ, that has NEVER had Tornadoes thanks to the asshats in OK and TX polluting air streams in exceedance of regulatory levels is normal?

          Just this past week, TN had a massive wind storm, as did OK and several other midwest states. I suppose you will now claim the dust storms of the 30s were not due to human stupidity too?

          • jtberger says:

            the amounts of co2 you cite ( 1000-5000ppm) are 2.5 to 12.5 times the normal amounts. I am sure that if you increased the amounts of oxygen in the air by 5x that that might also kill you.
            I recall a guy participating in a contest of who could drink the most water in 15 minutes. One guy actually did die, coz his blood got too thin.
            Almost anything if consumed in excessive amounts can be harmful and possibly even lethal.
            Human foolishness knows no limits.
            You’ve proved my point by citing dust storms.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            That WAS my point. For the 24 years and 10 months I worked with a PhD from MIT and a Cambridge educated MSME, the basic premise they always used to prove exceedances that were considered toxicity was always based on those found in the Federal Register of the EPA.

            No need for more of you inexperienced clap trap trying to MISS educate others to your version of what is and isn’t an exceedance of safe limits of hazardous toxins.

            I mentioned the dust storms which do not in ANY WAY prove your silly need to pretend your superior knowledge. Any Agronomist above the level of MS degree would tell you that the reason for those dust storms was that they were MAN made due to the format of farming they used which was on flat land as would be natural for the midwestern states of KS, IA and parts of NB. The reason dust storms were man made was that Wall Street began to turn agricultural products into a wealth by insisting on mass production. Farmers in the midwest planted crops on flat land in soil THEY depleted due to lack of proper plant rotation. Over a matter of a decade, a single drought then caused the soil to dry and lift away. Ergo the dust storms.

            This was latter remediated when the Department of Agriculture sent out agronomists to “teach” these farmers to use “tier” planting to avoid another rash of dust storms.

            These are facts that can easily be proven by several agronomy experts. So no need for you to try and teach what I already know.

          • jtberger says:

            You missed my point entirely.
            The fact that you would spend so much time on such a foolish argument that nobody in the entire world would believe. I.e. that dust stroms were not man made indicates some irrationality. My speciality was the measurement and appraisal of human intelligence. ( teacher and professional IQ tester)
            Your entire discussion relates to the affects of impossibilities.
            i.e. what would happen to people if the co2 levels were to increase more than 12 times existing levels. It is much like asking what would happen if the temp of the earth were to increase by10 degrees c. or what would happen if world wide precipitation were to double (both totally impossible)
            YOu still haven’t answered my most important argument… Why are our crops getting better and better …if climate change were a reality.
            It is clear I have been wasting my time. Instead of discussing the real world … you have introduced foolish and extraneous arguments that have no relevance at all to the real world.
            Prove to me that those tiny amounts of co2 and methane could possibly have any affect on our weather or climate.
            Now you have a chance to address my 2 basic most fundamental arguments.
            You have written me 4 replies but still haven’t address either of those basic questions. Both of which are totally in fundamental conflict with modern climate change theory.

  5. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    As most people know, I worked with environmental engineers as their tech writer and accounting manager for nearly 25 years. As a tech writer for environmental, I often had to do research on articles the engineers, consulting and mechanical, submitted to technical publications.

    Anyone who says climate change is not real is a fool. For the past 50 years, the evidence is all there that man made pollution seriously contributes to severe weather patterns.

    When a person says methane is only 1.8 parts per million, they obviously have never seen what happens to a business that stores wood chips that swell into 80 foot high mountains. The methane buildup is highly toxic and flammable. Back in 1990, the wood chip business in my town in the hottest July to that date began to ignite. It took 7 fire departments to stop the blaze. And even then, it smouldered with the acrid odor and visible plumes of smoke for another 2 months.

    CO2 and Methane build up in states like TX and OK where the gas flames burn off into the atmosphere. The anti Climate Change naysayers want us to believe their is NO harm in 156 Galveston oil field gas flames heating up the atmosphere. Oh no? Then, do explain why TX and OK both have had the worst static electric storms and tornades, not to mention the resulting floods?

    There are many ways to stop pollution. First, like coal ash that WVA refused to do anything about for over a century, now those old outdated coal mines are leaching toxic waste into WVA waterways.

    The anti Climate Change naysayers will tell you that CO2 and Methane are nice and healthy. Until you get CO2 and Methane if parts per billion that exceed healthy levels.

    • dpaano says:

      I’d like to put the noses of those Climate Change naysayers up against a cow’s behind and let them deal with the methane coming from cows who eat nothing but grainage! I wonder how long they’d last before they’d drop to the ground!!! You had to admit, it WOULD be hilarious to see them glued to a cow’s behind!!! LOL!!!

  6. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    The reality of climate change is for states who are paying the price of the burden of neighboring polluter states who won’t clean up their pollution is to sue until they do.

    NY, NJ and several other states had to do this when those coal fired industrial furnaces in the midwest increased lung diseases in northeastern states downwind of their pollution were costing our states a fortune in clean up.

    Force the responsibility back where it belongs: on polluters who refuse to face the reality that fossil fuels are not the way of the future.

  7. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    I always love making fools of the anti Climate Change morons. Newfoundland reports massive increases in break up of Texas sized icebergs, the Antartic is having longer summers without ice, northwestern Canada’s glaciers are all but gone but the “ignernts” from the Oil bather states still can’t find real jobs in non fossil fuel industries.

    Then, they post stupid remarks that CO2 in exceedance of safe levels is just fine and dandy. Good. Now go get yourself a tank of CO2 and breathe in 20,000 ppms. We’ll forget to pick your butts up off the floor.

    • jtberger says:

      Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom…Socrates.
      There is absolutely no hope for humanity. I have recently conducted a survey among about 50 of my intelligent acquaintances…. almost all true believers.
      Most guessed the amount of co2 in the atmosphere at 10 to 50%. Only one guy working in the oil patch guessed at less than 1%. And 1% is still 25 times the real world. Our weather records go back 133 years. In July we have had only 3 record highs in the past 67 years with 28 record highs before 1950.
      Of course the glaciers have been melting for the past 10 or 12,000 years. That was real climate change and most certainly not man made. How is that relevant to the cooler summers and warmer winters that most of the northern hemisphere is experiencing. ?
      I spend almost a thousand dollars a year following world crop production reports. Our crops keep getting better and better with each passing decade….alll over the world.
      Please explain that…. in terms of climate change.
      Human foolishness knows no limits.
      i have 6 years of university and was a member of Mensa. and have studied weather and climate history extensively. It is patently obvious that relating co2 to climate change is indeed the HOAX of the 21st. century.
      Pollution is our big problem in all of its many insidious, pernicious and destructive forms….and co2 is NOT one of them.
      Localized floods, winds, droughts have always been with us and have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. And world wide crop production keeps getting better and better. in spite of “catastrophic climate change”.
      You people would really be funny if you weren’t so influential in diverting our attention away from our real enemy …POLLUTION.

  8. dpaano says:

    California and other Democratic-led states have ALWAYS led the country! If we could only gain back the governorships of more states, we could “overthrow” the president’s rules on climate change and make our own agreements, much like California has! I’m proud to be a Californian, and I only hope that other states see what we accomplish and follow suit!

  9. 788eddie says:

    Gee, the way “people on the left” are arguing, you’d think we were down to our last planet. ;- )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.