That's a woman? Surprised me! Looks like Hillary's old lesbian roommate at Wellesley College.

So, if we could only put on the "right" glasses, we would see Clinton for what she is, an alien creature that looks like a rotting corpse, subliminally telling us to "Obey!" (ref: the sci-fi movie, "They Live!") I've seen pictures of her that look like that even without the glasses! LOL!

Not even a teeny, tiny bit? You're a harrrrd man, FF. "By their works shall you know them." The good old bible has a quote for every situation.

But I think that is an incorrect identification of what part of the whole process causes the problem. Charcoaling is inherently carbon neutral, the problem is the poor land management. If that part alone were fixed, then charcoal IS a solution (though I agree only very limited scale).

I assume by "known CO2 scrubber" you mean the rain forests. However, it is not a question of "allowing" destruction as if some government should step in to stop it, most removal of ancient forest is by government logging permits. Its a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation. If removal of timber was only acceptable from your own property, forests would be better managed. The vast rainforests would then gradually become private property (using something similar to the homesteading principle) and forests would be maintained.

Actually, as a separate point, today's forests are not really major CO2 sinks at all. Even the amazon basin is mostly aerobic swamp, so most carbon gets decomposed again fairly quickly. Last major organic sink was the carboniferous period, when huge forests were growing in anaerobic swamps which prevented decomposition of dead material, thus forming coal etc. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to preserve forests, but reducing atmospheric CO2 is not one of them.

"Naomi Klein is confused "
I only read the first part of her book and skimmed the rest, but it seems she knows she wants some form of socialism. She thinks the problem of the environment is so big it can only be solved through socialism. I think just like all problems big and small it's best solved by leaving people alone and having some structure to enforce agreements and stop people from steeling/trashing other people's stuff.

"Reality sucks."
That is the most succinct and accurate summary of this problem.

Gov't's record on planning and fixing things is indeed horrible. There's needs to be some structure to deal with when one person's activities (e.g. deforestation) incur a cost on others. I definitely do not think it should be gov't investing in energy companies and things like that. I think they should just work out the cost of these things and charge some kind of revenue neutral tax on that. By that I mean a tax offset by lower taxes on work and investment. If we ever have stopped taxing work and investment, which is an idea that intrigues me, then we'll have to figure out some other system.

I do not think people so damn worried should act. If we just charge people based on the actual cost of their activities, the problem will work itself out. People will find alternatives except in cases where they can create more value than the cost of the environmental damage. In either case, people maximize value pursuing their own self interests and not at the expense of stealing value from others.

Good luck with Colorado. You'd be better off in Wyoming, where at least you've got a shot at oil...

"The simple minded folks telling us "It's your fault" and "Now you must do this and this" and then manipulate it all so they make money off it, are the problem. "
It is true that people exploit problems as you say by a) telling you who's to blame and b) what to do about it. Not everyone trying to solve a problem, though, is doing that.

Several of things you say no one mentions or exploits actually are exploited in some circles. I'll go through the ones I happen to know about without in any way disparaging you for not knowing of all brands of political exploitation in the world.

" the idiots never mention the fact that the "poor people" in the world today in same dark ages, deforest, turn wood into charcoal"
This is one of the key issues. When Europe and US were industrializing, they were less efficient in terms of GDP per carbon emission than today. When experts rightly say we need to do something about the effects of carbon emissions, less developed countries complain that now that they don't get the benefit of being inefficient in their industrial infancy that advanced countries got. Naomi Klein says this is the perfect excuse to ask the rich to give wealth to the poor.

"Amazon Rain Forest"
Most people accept deforestation as a part of the problem. I suspect people who think decreased biodiversity is a greater threat might focus on the climate change impact of deforestation because it's more widely known. I know they're both problems, and I do not know which is more serious/costly.

You touch on the notion that climate change isn't the only impact humans have on the earth. We're in the middle of the sixith mass extinction event the earth has seen, probably caused by human activities. It would be desirable if none of this were costing anyone else, if there room for infinite expansion of human activities with no impact on other humans. That's clearly false. Global warming is just one impact. Going back to the population and lifestyle of pre-industrial times is obviously not possible or desirable. I'm confident people will find solutions: ways to reduce carbon emissions or absorb them and put them back in the ground, alternatives to HFCs, etc. Eventually I imagine people will move into the oceans and space. If you think about how 150 years ago the first practical transatlantic cable was new technology, it's not hard to imagine in 150 years people living in space and carefully controlling the biosphere with technologies we cannot even imagine.

Sorry, no excuses for the traitor in chief.

Are you ready to move to AS's Colorado?

Oh don't start the "rigged" thing, the mainstream media has already made a joke of Trump for that and the RINO party joined in. That proves that the system cannot be rigged. They said so. They are always right. I am waiting with baited breath for the HillaryBeast posters with her stern, ugly face and OBEY plastered over it to appear....

I think the votes have already been counted...

Oh, she'll win. Best that we all get ready.

One of her underlings was in my office about a year ago shooting his mouth off. He said that we need to clean up the air to stem the worsening childhood asthma. He failed to mention, of course, that the air has gotten cleaner while the childhood asthma has gotten worse. But...I'm just an idiot who deals in facts. These people are evil, honestly.

Climate Science is fraudulent just are all other liberal objectives. There are several ways that I can debunk this science. I have several posts on Linked in at Brad Snipes.
There is very little temperature data for the Southern hemisphere. See www.ndbc.noaa.gov.
The "so-called scientists" (who espouse man-caused global warming) are working with other liberals to achieve a one world government. They have taken a very meager and hopelessly inadequate data set and have manipulated it to achieve a political objective; complete control of the energy sectors of our economy. Global warming is a fabrication.

So there you go, take all the trees and make charcoal, and do not regrow them, and soon you have more and more acceleration added to the "problem". Therefore, until a fast growing source is in place, charcoal is NOT a solution,

Bingo! All that has been carefully ignored by all parties.

Salta, if that is true, then why do they allow such rapid destruction of the one known CO2 scrubber we have? The CO2 argument breaks down under cause and effect, unless someone really isn't concerned with, or actually wants, CO2 to go up. I have seen so much "science" on both sides of the argument, that neither side is really understanding or telling the truth, since facts seem to be manipulated for both sides.

That may very well be part of it, control energy, control people, control their sources and more control.

That is part of the whole scam, there is something afoot with it, with rapid deforestation by countries being ignored (which is probably one of the biggest causes of CO2 build up for the reason you state). Why is that allowed, but the "production" of CO2 is vilified? There is more afoot here, folks. I would say follow the money, but a lot of it seems to stop at HRC.

Note that our efforts in space are mostly "we plan to land" etc. The space exploration efforts were reversed after Apollo 17 (assuming you believe they went to the moon, a lot of people are still in the "fake" boat"), back to shuttle, and now back too rockets. The private industry has now taken over efforts to get off the rock, so is that because of private industry or planning to control space through money?

When ever a decree is made they should be the first who must live that way, use the medical care they have proscribed etc. And they should be the only ones that have to live that way.

Doesn't all this infer the god-like ability to predict the future with a total disregard for the planet's weather history? They can't accurately predict next week's weather, let alone the next hundred years.