Dangerous Feedback Loop From the Soil?! WTF?!

No Global Warming For Past 18 Years

I've seen this quote before and it's total BS. The summer before this one we had two weeks straight of 100 degree plus weather in Eastern Washington which was absolutely unprecedented. I remember about 8 years ago Texas set a record by having 40 straight days of 100 degree weather. Last summer they had record temperatures in Iran and India I believe it was.

That 18 year stat was probably written by a Republican, which would explain why it's so wrong.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
They have a list of these supposed end all feedback loops. If it were so direly delicate then there'd be all manner of extreme swings across the millenia. Yet, according to Al Gore, the climate hasn't changed hardly a lick for 400,000 years until man showed up.

The feedback loop they're really looking for is $ between carbon credits and the banks.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Now that is a reply with out any guile.

Scientists say lead in fuel is really bad, the entire world agrees and stops using lead in fuel.

Scientists say cfc's are destroying the ozone layer, the entire world agrees and stops using cfc's.

Scientists say we're putting way too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere... "Nuh they lying!"

I don't think it's quite as bad as some say, but if it is leading us towards being greener, what's the problem?

I don't think you can look around and Not notice that things are changing. I think the big worry is that we are in a glacial high, yet our temperatures are not remaining stable (as they did in historical records), but rising. Also, the excess CO2 is being absorbed into the oceans, raising the ph and warming the waters.
I'm not a scientist, but have been told by one that the ONLY explanation for such a heavy saturation of CO2 in the record is the burning of fossil fuels, which we know is going to continue, especially with the discoveries in the Permian basin recently.

a reply to: Starcrossd

You do know that by nature sea water as well as lake an driver water have a High Ph?

You do know that bacteria in the soil, as well as bacteria in the sea and lake water eats up CO2?

And you also know that some Algae and Plankton eat up CO2 as well?

Also you know that Ozone is replaceable?

It happens when evaporated or gaseous water enters into the upper atmosphere an dis bombarded with UV rays from the Sun. Then cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and cause the ozone to cool causing a liquefaction of the Ozone, as it liquefies Ozone breaks down into water and h2O2. The H2O2 evaporates leaving only trace amounts in the water as it liquefies into rain.

This is what we have learned throughout the years about Soil, Air and Water, they all make up part of the thermo-dynamic circle that runs our planet. Along with the electrical magnetic charges generated by the core.

originally posted by: CB328

No Global Warming For Past 18 Years

I've seen this quote before and it's total BS. The summer before this one we had two weeks straight of 100 degree plus weather in Eastern Washington which was absolutely unprecedented. I remember about 8 years ago Texas set a record by having 40 straight days of 100 degree weather. Last summer they had record temperatures in Iran and India I believe it was.

That 18 year stat was probably written by a Republican, which would explain why it's so wrong.

You can't pick out random record heating event and present it as proof of Climate change. That year that Texas had 40 days of straight 100s was 2011(and it was miserable). In 2011 we were entering into a 2nd year La nina, which has very negative impacts in Texas in terms of heat and drought. First year La Ninas have typically caused drought in the Southern U.S and it's not always in the same spot(This years la nina has been causing drought in East Texas and areas eastward) This is typically due to a Southeast ridge that is stronger in La Ninas. After a time of rainy period in 2009 due to an El Nino Texas began to go into a drought 2010 when a la nina had developed. That la nina continued into 2011 and the Texas drought worsened. The Summer 2011 featured a very prominent high pressure over Texas that caused excruciating heat, this high pressure isn't always over Texas and in the summer time it typically moves around some. Sometimes it moves North or East, but in 2011 it really didn't move. This high pressure was so strong that it ate a tropical storm(Don) and destroyed it before landfall! It was due to this high and drought, caused by the multiyear la nina that we had that Summer.

I can't speak for Eastern Washington, India, or Iran as I'm not as closely familiar with their climates. However, the Summer before this one(2015) We had a strengthening El Nino, and El Nino tends to warm up most places around the world, especially ones in Summer.

a reply to: rickymouse

Plants take most of their carbon from the air, removing it from the carbon dioxide. People think black soils, full of carbon are good for the garden, yes they are. The carbon that comes from the soil actually does so by vaporizing into carbon dioxide and the plant uses it. It releases enzymes through it's roots that cause this release to happen. That is how I understand it from what I read anyway.

Carbon does not simply leech out of the soil as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is formed by burning (oxidizing) carbon. I assure you that the roots of plants are not igniting carbon in the soil. Unless, perhaps, you're growing fire-breathing snapdragons?

Certain micro-organisms may release carbon dioxide as a part of their life process (like we do). But in general, carbon in the soil slowly undergoes chemical interactions with other soil components and ends up as just carbon compounds. Carbon does not nutritionally enrich soil, either. Fertilizer is designed to release nitrogen compounds, phosphorous, etc. into the soil for plants to use as nutrients. Carbon is not a needed nutrient, since the plants do get the bulk of their carbon needs via photosynthesis.

My only concern now is trying to predict what can possibly be the next ridiculous target for demonizing that innocent little element. We've got atmospheric feedback, oceanic feedback, now soil feedback... next our carbon cycle will probably be vilified by discovering that Alpha Centauri is sending carbon atoms across the vastness of space in a focused beam.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rickymouse

Plants take most of their carbon from the air, removing it from the carbon dioxide. People think black soils, full of carbon are good for the garden, yes they are. The carbon that comes from the soil actually does so by vaporizing into carbon dioxide and the plant uses it. It releases enzymes through it's roots that cause this release to happen. That is how I understand it from what I read anyway.

Carbon does not simply leech out of the soil as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is formed by burning (oxidizing) carbon. I assure you that the roots of plants are not igniting carbon in the soil. Unless, perhaps, you're growing fire-breathing snapdragons?

Certain micro-organisms may release carbon dioxide as a part of their life process (like we do). But in general, carbon in the soil slowly undergoes chemical interactions with other soil components and ends up as just carbon compounds. Carbon does not nutritionally enrich soil, either. Fertilizer is designed to release nitrogen compounds, phosphorous, etc. into the soil for plants to use as nutrients. Carbon is not a needed nutrient, since the plants do get the bulk of their carbon needs via photosynthesis.

My only concern now is trying to predict what can possibly be the next ridiculous target for demonizing that innocent little element. We've got atmospheric feedback, oceanic feedback, now soil feedback... next our carbon cycle will probably be vilified by discovering that Alpha Centauri is sending carbon atoms across the vastness of space in a focused beam.

TheRedneck

Fire is nothing more than a catalyzed chemical reaction. Plant roots excrete chemicals to do many things to free nutrients from the soils, one is to release carbon so it can be absorbed. Microorganisms also excrete chemistry to release carbon from the soil, the microorganisms work symbiotically with plants to accomplish this.

Here is a link that explains what I said. It is a reputable source. oregonstate.edu...

I actually study food chemistry and to do it right, I have to study how plants get their nutrients and what a plant has the ability to absorb from the soil.

Here is an example.....Arsenic is not a problem, most plants do not take it up from the soils or environment. The rice plant and ferns uptake it. They will not uptake it if it is not present in the soil though. Other plants uptake it and put it in the seed of their fruits. Arsenic is a strong mutagen and can actually contribute greatly to cancer starting. I tried to find if Asparagus takes up Arsenic but could not find that information, asparagus is a fern. I cannot say it does till I see some evidence.

Carbon is not the only thing that causes global warming, but we are releasing too much of it into our environment and then it becomes a problem. All we need to do is quit wasting our carbon energy and it will last for a lot longer and it will produce less bad environmental impact. We need to make toasters that last a lifetime and freezers that once again last twenty five years instead of seven to ten year life expectancies. It is a lot more than Carbon, look at the Jets flying at any given moment, there are more than carbon molecules being released in that fuel. We are traveling too much, cruise ships use humungus amounts of fuel in a trip. Waste is the problem, they even moved the factories far from people's homes. You can't just walk to your job or even to the store.

It is our stupidity that caused this, not the carbon, carbon is only a molecule.

a reply to: rickymouse

In a study published in this week’s online edition of the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers showed that chemicals emitted by plant roots act on carbon that is bonded to minerals in the soil, breaking the bonds and exposing previously protected carbon to decomposition by microbes.

The carbon then passes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), said the study’s coauthor, Markus Kleber, a soil scientist in OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences.

He said the study challenges the prevailing view that carbon bonded to minerals stays in the soil for thousands of years. “As these root compounds separate the carbon from its protective mineral phase,” he said, “we may see a greater release of carbon from its storage sites in the soil.”

Source: oregonstate.edu...

I assume this is what you are referring to. And it's not a lie; I'm sure there are chemical reactions that liberate free carbon from compounds in soil. There are probably thousands of reactions every second that we don't know about. The thing is, these reactions are minor and barely change the overall composition of the soil. All chemical reactions have an equilibrium point which can shift based on temperature, catalyst activity, or a number of other environmental factors. Typically, that equilibrium point is far to one side or the other... in the case of free carbon vs. carbon compounds, it is far toward the carbon compounds.

In simple terms, if carbon forms compounds, some number of compounds will free carbon... a very small number of compounds. The overall result would be carbon forming compounds.

As to oxidation, it is an exothermic process, meaning it releases energy when it happens. No matter how you combine free carbon and oxygen, energy is released. In the body, the amount of reactants is tightly controlled so energy is released slowly, but if carbon is oxidized in air, the result is fire. Thus, the only way carbon in the soil turns into an appreciable amount of carbon dioxide is by fire.

Tilling soil does not produce appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide. It most certainly would not produce enough to make any difference in the photosynthesis of nearby plants.

It is our stupidity that caused this, not the carbon, carbon is only a molecule.

Absolutely right; carbon is just a molecule... actually an atom, but they typically travel in packs.

And we have plenty of stupidity going around... I just don't see where we have destroyed the planet by making carbon dioxide. True stupidity is thinking a tax will stop people from burning carbon-based fuels.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Well, economists have dumb ideas. That should be obvious by now, what with the 2007 economic crash. They're the ones who proposed a carbon tax, but I just don't see it working; we need energy, and we'll fight wars for it.

I've never been in favor of a carbon tax, but I certainly do accept that CO2 is warming the planet.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, a carbon tax is just a way that some people at the top will get more money as payment for deceiving others. It will do nothing to solve the problem. Just think how much less polution there would be if they made appliances to last double the years they do. Manufacturing would go down in half.

I just bought a freezer for around six hundred bucks. It is supposed to be energy efficient, which it is. But there is no reason that the life expectancy of a freezer should only be seven to ten years. The energy efficiency has nothing to do with durability, twenty bucks more in parts and it would last ten more years. Buying a more expensive unit does not increase the life expectancy, they are all junk. My old freezer is twenty six years old, I am still using it because with the half a cow, the other freezer can't take everything. The old one will be emptied in about two more weeks, it runs fine but it is getting a little more expensive to run each year, the door doesn't seal so good anymore. I would bet if I used the old freezer, it would last as long as the new one. I have another big freezer out in the shed, we have a lot of food stocked. Hopefully we win the half a pig from the band fundraiser ticket sales. Ten bucks for a ticket, one half pig prize, two quarter pig prizes, all processed.

So, buying a more energy efficient freezer costs you about seventy bucks a year considering the life expectancy.. The price of juice took a thirty percent hike here because they decided to start burning natural gas in a big gas engine instead of coal to meet emissions. That gobbled up all the savings from the difference in juice it uses. Now, the breaking off of carbon makes carbon dioxide, burning natural gas will require an equivalent amount of carbon to be released as burning coal. But the government says that power plants have to make changes, that just stimulates the economy, it does not reduce carbon emitted. They still have to run the big coal part too, they can't produce nearly enough energy with the gas engines at a cost of around seventy million bucks. No savings, much more expensive maintenance on those big engines over the long run. I don't know why people get BSed into believing these people making the new rules. They are just trying to stimulate buying of new things. The dumbing down of America has worked well.

Is climate change happening? Yes, we are doing a pile of things that is causing this, not just extra carbon. They will keep death dating everything so it fails earlier and earlier to stimulate the economy. There is no reason a furnace should need to be replaced after fourteen or fifteen years yet that has been the case for around fifteen years now. Almost all furnaces fall into this catagory, I remember you could count on them lasting twenty five years minimum for a cheap one and thirty five years for a better one. The efficiency drops a lot after a few years on everything, the energy rating game is a scam.

a reply to: Greven

That much I found out in economics class. Keynesian Economics, for instance, states that it is a necessary role of the government to regulate the economy. It also states that the most efficient way to slow the economy is through taxes, while the most efficient way to stimulate the economy is through government spending. What it ignores is the damage those two things do over long time periods. Keynes had some good ideas, but those referenced above are not among them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rickymouse

You're preaching to the choir on most of those points. Our economy has 'progressed' to the point of endangering our very way of life. The high efficiency comes with a high price: the rare earth metals used in high efficiency devices are highly t oxic to the environment, and the toxic chemicals used to refine them are pure poison. I don't have the links on this tablet, but the environmental costs of producing a 'clean' car is many times higher that the cost of producing and operating a regular gasoline car. But, we farm out the hazardous stuff to countries who can't (or don't) afford to say no. Then we sit back and talk about how environmentally conscious we are, while toxic refuse from poorly-designed gadgets builds up around us.

Hypocrisy, thy name is humanity.

The energy costs are a scam as well. While it is true that coal produces more carbon dioxide than natural gas, the real problem with coal has always been it's inherent impurity. New technology solves that issue.

Almost every dependable energy source uses hydrocarbon combustion, thus almost every dependable energy source creates carbon dioxide. We have a few alternatives: hydro, nuclear, wind, solar... but all these have issues. We're running out of rivers to dam for hydro, nuclear has inherent dangers and is politically unacceptable, wind will at some effect directly affect the planetary weather system, and solar has yet to overcome the inherent problems of DC-AC conversion, needed high voltage for transmission, efficiency, and cost. Not to mention solar cells produce those pollutants I mentioned earlier.

I'd like to see a good alternative to oil myself, but right now one doesn't exist.

And I just don't see any problem with the climate reports... I have a very solid basis in physics, have seen quite a few papers on Climate Change, and nothing tells me carbon dioxide is going to destroy our way of life, as long as we hold the politicians and bankers at bay.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree. But we have to start taking better care of this planets ecosystem. If we quit poisoning things like the land and the sea with toxic chemicals like you were talking about, it can help us to overcome stuff like carbon emissions. The trees always took care of this before, but if you cut all the trees down how are they going to help. If you kill all the microbes in the sea which convert the carbon and other elements back to natural, then they cannot clean the water.

We can burn coal and gas, but those jets peppering the sky are not a good thing. We don't need to be traveling around the world on vacations as much as we do. When I was in my teens to early twenties, most people put five to six thousand miles a year on their cars, now most people put twenty thousand or more miles a year on. I was one of those people, go go go. Run here, run there, every day going somewhere. I look back at that and wonder how stupid I was back then doped up on the foods they said were safe. Spend three dollars in gas to go to a store to save a buck on something.

I am not innocent, I just learned to open up my eyes. If the wife and I didn't go out and eat all the time and go bouncing around and buy things we really didn't need, we could have retired fifteen to twenty years earlier than we did. Conditioned by society to spend and waste money resulted in us working many years longer.

How can you tell kids this kind of stuff and have them believe you? Society wants us to be good consumers.

a reply to: rickymouse

It has been said, "One cannot serve both God and money."

Everything you have mentioned boils down to serving money. People drive that 20k+ annual mileage for money. They hop those jets for money. They build up, up, up in the cities for money. They turn their back on nature, family, simplicity, and peace of mind for money.

Like you, I was once a member of the rat race, until I realized the game was fixed... only rats win. Now I'm back on my family home, caring for family members and enjoying a more peaceful life. I woke up this morning and looked out the window, surrounded by natural beauty others pay good money to hang a picture of on their walls. The air is clean, there is no noise besides ducks quacking and a rooster crowing, and all is peaceful. Yet, even here, there is a concerted action to pull me back into that rat race: property taxes, medical bills, inflation... and to pay those things, I have to have a job. That forces me to drive to work in the city.

There has to be a better way.

But as long as others worship green paper so much that they cannot abide someone like me, there will be these pulls back into the rat race. I have long heard the complaints about religious persuasion like Jehovah's Witnesses, but from where I sit they have nothing on the religious interference and fanaticism demonstrated daily by those members of the Church of the Dollar.

There's your root problem, the true source of the pollution, devastation, and ecological abuse we see daily. And Global Warming with it's cries of doom and gloom over a natural part of the ecological cycle is just another section of religious fanaticism... and IMO, one of the most dangerous cults around.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If people just respected nature as much as they did money, we would not be having this problem. The fact remains, we should not be in the cycle for a thousand more years. We accelerated the cycle bringing it in to our lifetime. It would have happened eventually, in the life of our great,great,great, great,great grandchildren.

To fix this we must all just tone things down a bit. We have to live like you said you now do and leave the ratrace that is powered by desire to get ahead of others. This world can take care of us if we do not Frack the crust so much or dump unnatural or highly concentrated natural chemistry into the environment. What is wrong with getting beef from a farm close and having some meat processing facilities in the local area. The big factories cause the problem with excessive concentrations, the little processing plants and butchers in the stores that cut meat there instead of them coming prepackaged is a good thing. I know some butchers who are unhappy because all they do is stock the coolers and price packages. They liked their job cutting meat. Each store would supply two jobs at the local level before cutting meats, now those jobs turned into jobs that the people could not be proud they are doing.

Concentrated chemistry is not good, the Chinese cities are not a good place to live and the toxins from all the factories are hurting their people badly. They even make fake eggs over there, I would think it would be easier for a farmer to grow chickens than a factory to make artificial eggs that look like real eggs. It doesn't make sense.

We should bring back factories to this country where the emmission standards are a little stricter, if not for us, to help the Chinese people who are getting sick over there from all the toxic air chemistry. Those toxins do not just disappear, they cause problems for years in the environment. We cannot torture those people just to save a few bucks. We survived and were healthier it seems when we had work around here, sitting at a desk all day long is harder on the body then moving around. I worked at Kohler back in the early eighties, it was hard work but there was hardly any stress to the job. I worked at another foundry for a couple of months making aluminum pots and pans too, that was also a good job, but I always liked working outdoors, I would rather be working outside on houses in the winter than sitting in a warm factory indoors. Now the jobs outdoors in a factory are there, but it seems others with more seniority also liked doing those so I couldn't get those.

I love nature, I used to go camping in the hills when I was a kid. I hunted and fished and liked to work hard outside. I grew up on a farm in the summers and lived in town in the winters. I loved playing outdoors even in snowy cold weather. I am a Finn, that is what I like, Arizona is not a place I would want to live. I spent two weeks there one year getting my uncle ready to come back here and driving him back. It was ok for a little while but even my uncle got real tired of it after a year.

There is nothing better than to sit around a campfire with the family and cook some hot dogs and marshmallows. I now like coffee instead of beer, but either way it is so stress relieving. Fishing on a little stream for brookies is also relaxing. Why would anyone want to rent a charter fishing boat to catch fish? Three little brookies make a good meal for the wife and I and I only have to drive about a mile total round trip to hit three streams an get those.

I have a wood cookstove and we fire that up often and cook in the oven and heat the house. I burn wood that was cut for other reasons, I know people who sell me wood that they got from tops from logging or from clearing lots to build houses. That wood needed to be cut, they would have burned the wood in a fire at the jobsite. Wood burning does not release any more carbon than if it rotted in the woods. It is actually eco friendly to burn dead trees.

Although, that flying squirrel that had his nest in a dead oak on my land did not think it was eco friendly when I cut down his tree, his nest was lined with nice green moss inside, he must of hauled that in there to make a soft mat grow. I felt bad that my eco friendly action had inconvenienced that squirrel. We have two flying squirrels that come on our deck now at night so we put seeds out for them every night now. That is the least we can do to pay restitution to their kin that I wronged. And they sure are cute, they also are way faster at running than a squirrel which surprised me. I have always seen them move with light, they run slow in the light but they sure fly on their legs when it is dark enough for them to see well.

a reply to: rickymouse

Concentrated chemistry is not good

^^^This^^^

All pollution is, is concentration. We have not added a single molecule, not a single atom to the planet in all the centuries we have stood on it. But what we have done is to concentrate those molecules.

You earlier mentioned arsenic and plants. Most plants contain some arsenic, and arsenic is a deadly poison. But the amount of arsenic is typically so low it causes no ill effects. Most chemicals are like that; they exist and may even be dangerous, but only when concentrated. Technology causes us to concentrate these chemicals to improve our standard of living. We mine ore and turn it into (relatively) pure metals and alloys of metals to make our machines. We concentrate chemicals to produce better batteries. We refine chemicals for use as cleaners and solvents. But then, when we are through, we flush them down a drain and forget that we just released a harmful chemical into the environment at tens of millions of times the normal concentration. Nothing just goes away when we are done with it; it still exists in some form.

That's the heart of my disdain over the carbon debate. We have added no more carbon to the environment than what was already here. Carbon exists in fairly high concentrations in nature. The only thing we have done is make a minor, extremely minor, change in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Were we to start seeing drastic changes, I would be right there with you voicing concern... but we haven't seen that. And we still haven't seen solid evidence the planet is warming from the carbon dioxide levels. We have theories, some data that could indicate it is, and models that are still trying to get everything right, but no hard, solid data. Any measured rise at this time is simply too small compared to the noise in the system to be considered accurate.

The signal-to-noise ration is on the order of -30db (back of the envelope SWAG).

...

Growing up in the same mountain where I now live, it became my place of solace. I learned to live in it indefinitely; I have simply walked away and returned a week later, well-fed and with my mind at peace. Nature provides everything one needs to survive... even to thrive. Les Stroud knows how to survive in icy climates. but put him down here and I consider him a comedian when he tries to survive. I have seen him struggle to get by in an area where, had I been dropped there in my prime with what he had, the retrieval team two weeks later would have been invited in off the front porch for a nice meal. I do have to admit, though, that I would probably die of exposure where he can survive.

Which is another of my main points: even if the planet is warming by a few degrees, that can in many ways be a good thing. A few degrees would make precious little difference in sea level, very tiny compared to what Miami is experiencing through land subsidence, growing seasons would increase slightly, more areas could grow crops, crops would grow a little faster, and energy usage would likely go down due to less winter heating. The human body works best at around 75-80 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than the average global temperature, and is much more efficient at cooling than heating itself. Overall, a few degrees rise would likely be a boon to mankind, not a disaster.

...

I use a wood heater in my shop. Instead of cutting live trees for firewood, I always look for dead or fallen trees to use. Anything else is a waste, and I cannot stand wastefulness. The squirrels like to eat nuts off the nut trees that otherwise I could eat, though, so no sympathy for them. They should feel lucky to not be in my cookpot after eating my food.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I haven't eaten squirrel in over forty five years. It sort of tastes a little like chicken. Lots of things sort of taste like chicken, even rabbit.

I don't think carbon is the biggest problem myself, the toxic chemicals at high concentrations both in the air and in the rivers are more of a concern to me. They disturb the soil microbes and also the birds. Birds poop in the trees, when they do it actually make the trees more fire resistant. Their poop is full of nitrogen compounds and the pine trees get nice and soft when they get nitrogen and when you puit a branch into the fire with needles on it, they don't burn very good. Without it they burn fast. I learned that a few years back, I had gotten a big bag of nitrogen for a buck on clearance and gave it to the trees here. The basis of most fire fighting chemicals is nitrogen.

a reply to: rickymouse

I don't think carbon is the biggest problem myself

It's not, and the problem we are looking at right now is that carbon has been deemed the boogeyman of air pollution. With the one exception of carbon monoxide (which breaks down rapidly in open air), carbon is not dangerous in the least.

Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, methane, ethane, CFCs... those are all chemicals which normally exist in trace (as in un-measureable) amounts naturally. Most are spewed by volcanoes (along with carbon dioxide), but the total amounts entering the atmosphere are low enough to be cleaned by natural processes. Industry, however, can easily out-produce volcanic amounts of these chemicals and overload the system. That's (supposedly) why we have the EPA.

But when the EPA begins to turn its attention instead to carbon dioxide, which does exist in measurable quantities naturally and is an integral part of the natural cycles, then we have a problem. Think of it like an autoimmune disease, such as scleroderma, AIDS, etc. Instead of attacking harmful invading chemicals and pathogens, the body's own immune system begins to target and attack the body itself. The result, as we all know, is a horrific death from within. We need our immune system to ward off threats from unnatural things inside us, but we also need it to not attack us.

That is the real danger of carbon dioxide mania.

At this stage, I am afraid our present version of the EPA already is not salvageable and must be scrapped. Hopefully we can get one that works correctly again. Trump has apparently started an attempt at salvaging it by appointing a non-carbon-phobic person to lead it... may his plan work.

TheRedneck