The Daily Sermon

Carbon dioxide now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels

June 3, 2022

Air samples from NOAA's Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii provide important data for climate scientists around the world. On Thursday, NOAA announced that analysis of data from their global sampling network showed that levels of the potent greenhouse gas methane recorded the largest annual increase ever observed in 2021, while carbon dioxide continued to increase at historically high rates.
The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is a benchmark site for measuring carbon dioxide, or CO2. NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography make independent measurements from this station on the slopes of Mauna Loa volcano. (NOAA)

Help yourself better understand the impending doom with the
Fear-Mongering Visualization Assistant.

Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA's Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanographyoffsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today.

NOAA's measurements of carbon dioxide at the mountaintop observatory on Hawaii's Big Island averaged 420.99 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 1.8 ppm over 2021. Scientists at Scripps, which maintains an independent record, calculated a monthly average of 420.78 ppm.

"The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to," said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. "We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation."

CO2 pollution is generated by burning fossil fuels for transportation and electrical generation, by cement manufacturing, deforestation, agriculture and many other practices. Along with other greenhouse gases, CO2 traps heat radiating from the planet's surface that would otherwise escape into space, causing the planet's atmosphere to warm steadily, which unleashes a cascade of weather impacts, including episodes of extreme heat, drought and wildfire activity, as well as heavier precipitation, flooding and tropical storm activity.

Impacts to the world's oceans from greenhouse gas pollution include increasing sea surface temperatures, rising sea levels, and an increased absorption of carbon, which makes sea water more acidic, leads to ocean deoxygenation, and makes it more difficult for some marine organisms to survive.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 pollution, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years.

CO2 levels are now comparable to the Pliocene Climatic Optimum, between 4.1 and 4.5 million years ago, when they were close to, or above 400 ppm. During that time, sea levels were between 5 and 25 meters higher than today, high enough to drown many of the world's largest modern cities. Temperatures then averaged 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate that large forests occupied today's Arctic tundra.

This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974.
This graph shows the monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. Monitoring was Initiated by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a NOAA weather station. NOAA started its own independent and complementary CO2 measurements in May of 1974. (NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. )
Download Image
Mauna Loa ideally located to monitor global pollution

NOAA's observatory, situated high on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano, is the global benchmark location for monitoring atmospheric CO2. At an elevation of 11,141 feet above sea level, the observatory samples air undisturbed by the influence of local pollution or vegetation, and produces measurements that represent the average state of the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere.

Charles David Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, initiated on-site measurements of CO2 at NOAA's weather station on Mauna Loa in 1958. Keeling was the first to recognize that CO2 levels in the Northern Hemisphere fell during the growing season, and rose as plants died back in the fall, and he documented these CO2 fluctuations in a record that came to be known as the Keeling Curveoffsite link. He was also the first to recognize that, despite the seasonal fluctuation, CO2 levels were rising every year.

NOAA began measurements in 1974, and the two research institutions have made complementary, independent observations ever since. Keeling's son, geochemist Ralph Keeling, runs the Scripps program at Mauna Loa.

"It's depressing that we've lacked the collective will power to slow the relentless rise in CO2," said Keeling. "Fossil-fuel use may no longer be accelerating, but we are still racing at top speed towards a global catastrophe."

The Mauna Loa data, together with measurements from sampling stations around the world, are incorporated by NOAA's Global Monitoring Laboratory into the Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, a foundational research dataset for international climate scientists and a benchmark for policymakers attempting to address the causes and impacts of climate change.

Despite decades of negotiation, the global community has been unable to significantly slow, let alone reverse, annual increases in atmospheric CO2 levels.

"Carbon dioxide is at levels our species has never experienced before — this is not new," said Pieter Tans, senior scientist with the Global Monitoring Laboratory. "We have known about this for half a century, and have failed to do anything meaningful about it. What's it going to take for us to wake up?"

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is all about an attempt to collapse the entire system into the federal safety net for total control. The trick is pulling it off without a revolution.

Can you not see the horrifying effects of climate change every day?

Next step, Biden will declare a national climate emergency, which will yield him a frightening amount of power. Buckle up boys and girls. Things could get bumpy.

GasGuzzler wrote:
This is all about an attempt to collapse the entire system into the federal safety net for total control. The trick is pulling it off without a revolution.

Can you not see the horrifying effects of climate change every day?

Next step, Biden will declare a national climate emergency, which will yield him a frightening amount of power. Buckle up boys and girls. Things could get bumpy.

GasGuzzler wrote:Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.

Rather than claim that you are somehow mistaken, to the contrary, I would like to point out that this is just another facet of our Federal government's attempt to emulate NAZI Germany.

Just as the Democrat Party is emulating Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Minister of Propaganda) and his implementation of the Communist Manifesto mandate #6 "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." ... Biden is emulating Hitler's handover of all private industry to Hermann Göring (look up "Four Year Plan") by handing over private industry to the Secretary of Defense to literally force them to do his will.

Just as Hitler and the NAZIs utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of the brownshirts to rise to power, Biden and the Democrats utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of BLM and ANTIFA to rise to power. The NAZIs instilled fear and panic over the invented and unexplained "threat" of "Jews" and "gypsies" ... just as Biden/Democrats generated fear and panic over COVID and Global Warming. Both NAZIs and Democrats are forever supportive of tyrannical measures eliminating individual liberties and personal wealth for purposes of ceding more power and wealth to the government, not to mention constantly eroding away the 2nd Amendment and summarily executing citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

So yes, Biden is unveiling his own "Four Year Plan". Unlike WWII Germans who were able to flee to the US to escape NAZI Germany, there is no other US to which We the People can escape our own tyranny.

Very astute observation.

.

GasGuzzler wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Instead of climate emergency, he threw me a curve ball and invoked the Defense Production Act. According to the Whitehouse, "this will allow the gov to invest in companies making solar panels".

I call bullshit. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this act gives Biden the power to order companies to produce whateverthehell he tells them to.

Rather than claim that you are somehow mistaken, to the contrary, I would like to point out that this is just another facet of our Federal government's attempt to emulate NAZI Germany.

Just as the Democrat Party is emulating Joseph Goebbels (NAZI Minister of Propaganda) and his implementation of the Communist Manifesto mandate #6 "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." ... Biden is emulating Hitler's handover of all private industry to Hermann Göring (look up "Four Year Plan") by handing over private industry to the Secretary of Defense to literally force them to do his will.

Just as Hitler and the NAZIs utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of the brownshirts to rise to power, Biden and the Democrats utilized the organized (and fully supported) violence of BLM and ANTIFA to rise to power. The NAZIs instilled fear and panic over the invented and unexplained "threat" of "Jews" and "gypsies" ... just as Biden/Democrats generated fear and panic over COVID and Global Warming. Both NAZIs and Democrats are forever supportive of tyrannical measures eliminating individual liberties and personal wealth for purposes of ceding more power and wealth to the government, not to mention constantly eroding away the 2nd Amendment and summarily executing citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

So yes, Biden is unveiling his own "Four Year Plan". Unlike WWII Germans who were able to flee to the US to escape NAZI Germany, there is no other US to which We the People can escape our own tyranny.

Very astute observation.

.

Very astute analysis. Scary shit.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?

If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.

There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you didn't catch today's sermon, it covered all the bases.

Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.

Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
The next one is a pretty graph.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.

Roj475 wrote: Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Roj475 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.

This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.

Roj475 wrote:
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.

Roj475 wrote:
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Roj475 wrote:
Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

Roj475 wrote:
On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?

If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.

There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.

James_ wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere, we need to use lesser fossil fuels and switch to more renewable energy. However, it does not stop with that, we also need to plant trees and also reduce our waste.

3 greenhouse gasses are helping the ozone layer to recover.

Roj475 wrote:

Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.

Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
The next one is a pretty graph.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.

Which one of you is correct?

CO2 is rising... or we can;t establish CO2 is rising?

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

Swan wrote:
Not possible because in reality the rise in CO2 is causing greening of desert area's as we speak.

Apparently that is not true ... IntoTheNight says.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
The next one is a pretty graph.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.

Which one of you is correct?

CO2 is rising... or we can;t establish CO2 is rising?

Swan likes to say all kinds of things that are 'True' that can't be measured.

GasGuzzler wrote:Hey, this seems like the perfect time to ask...

@ Into the Night,
I cannot recall the thread, but you responded to a Swan post a while back and said "a measurement is not a proof". (I think I have that word for word, correct me if I'm wrong)

If I say block A is taller than block B, then I measure Block A four inches taller than block B, I would say my measurement is proof.

Can you explain this a little? Thanks in advance.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:Hey, this seems like the perfect time to ask...

@ Into the Night,
I cannot recall the thread, but you responded to a Swan post a while back and said "a measurement is not a proof". (I think I have that word for word, correct me if I'm wrong)

If I say block A is taller than block B, then I measure Block A four inches taller than block B, I would say my measurement is proof.

Can you explain this a little? Thanks in advance.

The answer to your question is to take away the words "If I say block A is taller than block B" from your question.

With those words you are making a clear, falsifiable argument which, in conjunction the empirical observation, becomes a proof.

If, on the other hand, you present the physical characteristics, i.e. measurements, of block B, you do not have a proof. You don't even have an argument or claim.

.

Swan wrote:
CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Swan wrote:
This has been ,measured and proved very easily

GasGuzzler wrote:So did I misunderstand and Into the Night meant a single measurement is not a proof for global CO2 concentration?

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:So did I misunderstand and Into the Night meant a single measurement is not a proof for global CO2 concentration?

I presume that to be the case.

I will neither speak for what Into the Night meant nor for what you understood, however I will say that it seems clear to me that Into the Night made two separate statements, both being correct.

1. No technology yet exists to afford humanity a measure of total atmospheric CO2 to within any usable accuracy, and

2. An individual, local measurement of CO2 somewhere is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion (is thetefore not a proof).

Do you have a more specific question?

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
If we truly want to combat the rise of CO2 levels on our atmosphere,

Why would you want to? Do you dislike plants? You DO realize that life on Earth depends on CO2 in the atmosphere, right?

If life depends on CO2 in the atmosphere.... Why is CO2 rising?

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
we need to use lesser fossil fuels

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.

I don;t believe the burning of fossils was said.

Then you don't understand English.

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and switch to more renewable energy.

We already have it.
Oil is renewable energy.
Natural gas is renewable energy.
Hydroelectric is renewable energy.

There was no reference to saying oil etc... wasn't renewable... The words 'switch' and 'more' are key to the position.

There was. Again, you don't understand English.

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
platoonseaflyclimate wrote:
and also reduce our waste.

I don't think you realize how little waste is generated.

It is great to hear that you are fully into recycling and being efficient... Good on you. I'm proud.

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.

This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.

Should a new plant not be watered/ fed appropriately once placed in a different environment to where it originally was growing?

Into the Night wrote:Roj475 wrote:
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.

You must live in the SDTC. Ask me how I know.

I am not too far away from there (?) but only the last 7 years (Europe trips aside).

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Who said there was?

I did.

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

There are.

Roj475 wrote:
On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?

Why are you so worried about CO2?

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Why would you combat the rise of plant food [CO2]? We are nowhere near optimal levels. All your newly planted trees would certainly enjoy the extra life essential compound we call carbon dioxide.

This is on the basis that:

a) Newly planted vegetation survives 12 months/ takes a 'hold'.

Apparently you've never been on a farm...not even a sod farm.

Should a new plant not be watered/ fed appropriately once placed in a different environment to where it originally was growing?

Into the Night wrote:Roj475 wrote:
b) There is infrastructure and it is acceptable to maintain them, especially water if households are under direction to limit water use.

You must live in the SDTC. Ask me how I know.

I am not too far away from there (?) but only the last 7 years (Europe trips aside).

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
c) There isn't a reduction in vegetation whether locally or globally.

Who said there was?

I did.

[quote]Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
Additional plant food is good but only if there are sufficient plants to feed on it.

There are.

Roj475 wrote:
On the assumption CO2 is increasing/ set to increase... Why is that the case?

Why are you so worried about CO2?

I don't understand how something can be increasing if it cannot be measured and if it indeed exists.

GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

Roj475 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Roj475 wrote:
Whereas you said fossils don;t burn... Fortunately google can rescue my English again-

"the remains or impression of a prehistoric plant or animal embedded in rock and preserved in petrified form."

GasGuzzler wrote:

Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Roj475 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel

GasGuzzler wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.

You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel

Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.

I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.

You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel

Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?

LOL what percentage of your info did not come from the net?

Dorky