|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 17:58:02 GMT
I'm a physicist who has worked in renewables, the increase in frequency and severity of these catastrophic weather events has been a predicted consequence of the rise in temperatures we've seen. They predicted it years ago, it is now happening, and yet you still pretend it isn't necessarily climate change? These 'claims' are literally solely based on scientific evidence. There is no scientific basis behind the apocalyptic theories that the world is going to end, or begin to end in 8-12 years as pushed by leading warmists like the people behind Thunberg and groups like extinction rebellion, it’s just pure scaremongering. I genuinely cannot do more than tell you there is overwhelming evidence that manmade climate change will cause billions of deaths, trillions of dollars of damage, and kill off huge portions of species. 'The world' won't end in 8-12 years, and no-one is saying it will. It will be very difficult for humans, or at least a large portion of (probably poorer) humans to survive if we don't decarbonise within the next 8-12 years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 17:59:19 GMT
It just seems to me this climate change stuff is the latest in a long line of apocalyptic predictions that we’ve heard before, ie the ozone layer, acid rain, the ice age etc etc I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, it surely does, but what wil it’s impact be ? It will Almost certainly not match what the alarmists are pushing. On top of this is the fact the climate has always changed and always will, no matter what we do or don’t do. People have been pushing these doomsday theories for centuries, yet we’re still here, thriving better than ever before, some of these climate alarmists are on par with those people who go around with “the end isn’t nigh” sandwich boards. Of course much of it is motivated by politics, if you’re lefty then the odds are you’re going to blindly believe anything that gives industry and capitalism a bad name, linking every event to climate change is just confirmation bias. We fixed a large portion of the ozone hole at great cost by removing CFCs from appliances. It is nothing to do with politics whatsoever. Nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 18:04:14 GMT
Blair is not a socialist. I think too much is made of socialism and millionaires though. Socialism has no innate issue with rich people, more that there should be priority to ensure people without enough to live get the money first. There is no price, beyond removing material goods and 'non-necessary' (although I admit that part is slightly subjective) wealth to make sure humans aren't dying from lack of basic needs. I think therein lies your problem It is a great shame in my opinion that humanity finds it so difficult in general to sacrifice some luxuries for others to live. We're all reluctant, and it is a real flaw in our species.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 19, 2020 18:23:30 GMT
I think therein lies your problem It is a great shame in my opinion that humanity finds it so difficult in general to sacrifice some luxuries for others to live. We're all reluctant, and it is a real flaw in our species. Perhaps as animals our overriding " belief" is survival of the fittest.....even if it is not openly ackknowledged....eventually leading to extinction. I've heard it argued that our ability to maintain life that previously would not survive will be part of our downfall. Perhaps " we" aren't as good as we sometimes think we are. If we know that some people are sleeping in doorways tonight and it is very cold, why don't we do something about it? As individual action We know that they are there. We have the means. It's not a long term solution. .Many of us have enough money/ a spare room/ a garage/ somewhere to do something about it....at little or no cost. It doesn't take structural change to make a little bit of difference ( but a great difference to someone else)...just individual action, time and a cost to our priviliged lifestyle. I'm not judging here, I'm including myself in the problem.....but it's one reason that why I have a problem with the suggestions for long term solutions.......it always seems to depend upon not making personal sacrifice....which I can fully understand as most people in the west are also struggling....relatively but not just relatively
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 19, 2020 18:30:59 GMT
Those hail storms there now are like a kick in the nuts when you are already on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 18:35:09 GMT
It is a great shame in my opinion that humanity finds it so difficult in general to sacrifice some luxuries for others to live. We're all reluctant, and it is a real flaw in our species. Perhaps as animals our overriding " belief" is survival of the fittest.....even if it is not openly ackknowledged....eventually leading to extinction. I've heard it argued that our ability to maintain life that previously would not survive will be part of our downfall. Perhaps " we" aren't as good as we sometimes think we are. If we know that some people are sleeping in doorways tonight and it is very cold, why don't we do something about it? As individual action We know that they are there. We have the means. It's not a long term solution. .Many of us have enough money/ a spare room/ a garage/ somewhere to do something about it....at little or no cost. It doesn't take structural change to make a little bit of difference ( but a great difference to someone else)...just individual action, time and a cost to our priviliged lifestyle. I'm not judging here, I'm including myself in the problem.....but it's one reason that why I have a problem with the suggestions for long term solutions.......it always seems to depend upon not making personal sacrifice....which I can fully understand as most people in the west are also struggling....relatively but not just relatively There absolutely has to be personal sacrifice. But realistically we don't even need most people to make that. We are in such an unequal society that the top 1000 earners on earth could give 10% of their money away and end world hunger. Without anyone else doing anything. It's mad. We are very good at seeing what we want to see, i.e. donating a fiver a month to the Samaritans and feeling like we've done our bit, but we would never vote for serious structural change such as higher taxes for better infrastructure, and we give arguments like 'I earned it, why should I give it to poor people who can't be bothered to work?'. You would never see that argument for charity payments, because they are socially acceptable, whereas we've been conditioned to be sceptical of government enforced tax contributions, despite the fact that they tend to be more transparent from most charities. It probably stems slightly from the West's hatred of communism and socialism in the previous century, and the effort put into demonising anything anti-capitalist, despite the increase in labour-based policy and socialist policy in almost all western nations since the 1900s. See how many people demonise UBI/Higher taxes/welfare reform/nationalisation of industry as 'Marxist' despite having no concept of anything Marx stood for.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 19, 2020 18:48:36 GMT
Perhaps as animals our overriding " belief" is survival of the fittest.....even if it is not openly ackknowledged....eventually leading to extinction. I've heard it argued that our ability to maintain life that previously would not survive will be part of our downfall. Perhaps " we" aren't as good as we sometimes think we are. If we know that some people are sleeping in doorways tonight and it is very cold, why don't we do something about it? As individual action We know that they are there. We have the means. It's not a long term solution. .Many of us have enough money/ a spare room/ a garage/ somewhere to do something about it....at little or no cost. It doesn't take structural change to make a little bit of difference ( but a great difference to someone else)...just individual action, time and a cost to our priviliged lifestyle. I'm not judging here, I'm including myself in the problem.....but it's one reason that why I have a problem with the suggestions for long term solutions.......it always seems to depend upon not making personal sacrifice....which I can fully understand as most people in the west are also struggling....relatively but not just relatively There absolutely has to be personal sacrifice. But realistically we don't even need most people to make that. We are in such an unequal society that the top 1000 earners on earth could give 10% of their money away and end world hunger. Without anyone else doing anything. It's mad. We are very good at seeing what we want to see, i.e. donating a fiver a month to the Samaritans and feeling like we've done our bit, but we would never vote for serious structural change such as higher taxes for better infrastructure, and we give arguments like 'I earned it, why should I give it to poor people who can't be bothered to work?'. You would never see that argument for charity payments, because they are socially acceptable, whereas we've been conditioned to be sceptical of government enforced tax contributions, despite the fact that they tend to be more transparent from most charities. It probably stems slightly from the West's hatred of communism and socialism in the previous century, and the effort put into demonising anything anti-capitalist, despite the increase in labour-based policy and socialist policy in almost all western nations since the 1900s. See how many people demonise UBI/Higher taxes/welfare reform/nationalisation of industry as 'Marxist' despite having no concept of anything Marx stood for. Ok, but at the same time we don't need greater social change to help an individual homeless person living on the street. Why don't the most socialist minded of us get together ( or simply as individuals) solve a bit of the problem that we see daily before our eyes, in our cities?
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 19, 2020 18:54:45 GMT
The last few pages of this thread are a pisser. "You should all be forced to live the way I say 'cos you're all thickos!"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 19:07:22 GMT
There absolutely has to be personal sacrifice. But realistically we don't even need most people to make that. We are in such an unequal society that the top 1000 earners on earth could give 10% of their money away and end world hunger. Without anyone else doing anything. It's mad. We are very good at seeing what we want to see, i.e. donating a fiver a month to the Samaritans and feeling like we've done our bit, but we would never vote for serious structural change such as higher taxes for better infrastructure, and we give arguments like 'I earned it, why should I give it to poor people who can't be bothered to work?'. You would never see that argument for charity payments, because they are socially acceptable, whereas we've been conditioned to be sceptical of government enforced tax contributions, despite the fact that they tend to be more transparent from most charities. It probably stems slightly from the West's hatred of communism and socialism in the previous century, and the effort put into demonising anything anti-capitalist, despite the increase in labour-based policy and socialist policy in almost all western nations since the 1900s. See how many people demonise UBI/Higher taxes/welfare reform/nationalisation of industry as 'Marxist' despite having no concept of anything Marx stood for. Ok, but at the same time we don't need greater social change to help an individual homeless person living on the street. Why don't the most socialist minded of us get together ( or simply as individuals) solve a bit of the problem that we see daily before our eyes, in our cities? Well agreed, that's why charities exist. The most socially minded of us don't tend to be the richest of us who could make the most difference to the problem though.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 19:07:49 GMT
The last few pages of this thread are a pisser. "You should all be forced to live the way I say 'cos you're all thickos!" Presuming that's me you're talking about, when did I say that?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 19, 2020 19:08:27 GMT
Perhaps as animals our overriding " belief" is survival of the fittest.....even if it is not openly ackknowledged....eventually leading to extinction. I've heard it argued that our ability to maintain life that previously would not survive will be part of our downfall. Perhaps " we" aren't as good as we sometimes think we are. If we know that some people are sleeping in doorways tonight and it is very cold, why don't we do something about it? As individual action We know that they are there. We have the means. It's not a long term solution. .Many of us have enough money/ a spare room/ a garage/ somewhere to do something about it....at little or no cost. It doesn't take structural change to make a little bit of difference ( but a great difference to someone else)...just individual action, time and a cost to our priviliged lifestyle. I'm not judging here, I'm including myself in the problem.....but it's one reason that why I have a problem with the suggestions for long term solutions.......it always seems to depend upon not making personal sacrifice....which I can fully understand as most people in the west are also struggling....relatively but not just relatively There absolutely has to be personal sacrifice. But realistically we don't even need most people to make that. We are in such an unequal society that the top 1000 earners on earth could give 10% of their money away and end world hunger. Without anyone else doing anything. It's mad. We are very good at seeing what we want to see, i.e. donating a fiver a month to the Samaritans and feeling like we've done our bit, but we would never vote for serious structural change such as higher taxes for better infrastructure, and we give arguments like 'I earned it, why should I give it to poor people who can't be bothered to work?'. You would never see that argument for charity payments, because they are socially acceptable, whereas we've been conditioned to be sceptical of government enforced tax contributions, despite the fact that they tend to be more transparent from most charities. It probably stems slightly from the West's hatred of communism and socialism in the previous century, and the effort put into demonising anything anti-capitalist, despite the increase in labour-based policy and socialist policy in almost all western nations since the 1900s. See how many people demonise UBI/Higher taxes/welfare reform/nationalisation of industry as 'Marxist' despite having no concept of anything Marx stood for. Communism was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths last century, that might be why we're skeptical of it. Meanwhile capitalism has brought us food and goods in abundance and allowed us to live comfortable lives.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 19:09:36 GMT
There absolutely has to be personal sacrifice. But realistically we don't even need most people to make that. We are in such an unequal society that the top 1000 earners on earth could give 10% of their money away and end world hunger. Without anyone else doing anything. It's mad. We are very good at seeing what we want to see, i.e. donating a fiver a month to the Samaritans and feeling like we've done our bit, but we would never vote for serious structural change such as higher taxes for better infrastructure, and we give arguments like 'I earned it, why should I give it to poor people who can't be bothered to work?'. You would never see that argument for charity payments, because they are socially acceptable, whereas we've been conditioned to be sceptical of government enforced tax contributions, despite the fact that they tend to be more transparent from most charities. It probably stems slightly from the West's hatred of communism and socialism in the previous century, and the effort put into demonising anything anti-capitalist, despite the increase in labour-based policy and socialist policy in almost all western nations since the 1900s. See how many people demonise UBI/Higher taxes/welfare reform/nationalisation of industry as 'Marxist' despite having no concept of anything Marx stood for. Communism was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths last century, that might be why we're skeptical of it. Meanwhile capitalism has brought us food and goods in abundance and allowed us to live comfortable lives. Well no, hundreds of millions of people died under a communist dictator. The same way hundreds of millions of people have died under capitalist economies too.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 19, 2020 19:10:42 GMT
The last few pages of this thread are a pisser. "You should all be forced to live the way I say 'cos you're all thickos!" Presuming that's me you're talking about, when did I say that? It's written all over every one of your posts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 19:12:31 GMT
Presuming that's me you're talking about, when did I say that? It's written all over every one of your posts. Okay, tell me where. And tell me how that isn't the society you're already in, too. You are already forced to live a certain way. That's what a society is.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 19, 2020 19:16:42 GMT
It's written all over every one of your posts. Okay, tell me where. And tell me how that isn't the society you're already in, too. You are already forced to live a certain way. That's what a society is. The whole tone of the posts you make is always how you know best, everyone else is too thick to notice they're thick, and they should be forced into accepting your way. We live in the most free society on Earth, it's way half the world risk their lives to come here.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 19, 2020 19:29:06 GMT
Communism was responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths last century, that might be why we're skeptical of it. Meanwhile capitalism has brought us food and goods in abundance and allowed us to live comfortable lives. Well no, hundreds of millions of people died under a communist dictator. The same way hundreds of millions of people have died under capitalist economies too. Ah the old “that wasn’t real communism” line, well actually yes, it was, communism requires violence otherwise it can’t work, you necessarily have to bring the jackboot down on the people otherwise it can’t work, violence is inherent, that’s why it always ends in bloodshed. Anyone who looks through history and thinks communism is preferable to capitalism needs to give their head a bit of a wobble, bread lines and piles of bodies Vs iPods and Nike trainers.... gee lemme think 🤔
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 20:53:10 GMT
Okay, tell me where. And tell me how that isn't the society you're already in, too. You are already forced to live a certain way. That's what a society is. The whole tone of the posts you make is always how you know best, everyone else is too thick to notice they're thick, and they should be forced into accepting your way. We live in the most free society on Earth, it's way half the world risk their lives to come here. Well no, I'm saying this is what I believe. I'm not saying anyone should be forced into anything. The point in an opinion is that the person stating it believes they know best, I was actually very much enjoying the discussion with Bigjohnritchie and I think he puts his views across in a very measured way. That does not mean I'm trying to force him into believing my opinion or that I think he is 'stupid'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 21:01:18 GMT
Well no, hundreds of millions of people died under a communist dictator. The same way hundreds of millions of people have died under capitalist economies too. Ah the old “that wasn’t real communism” line, well actually yes, it was, communism requires violence otherwise it can’t work, you necessarily have to bring the jackboot down on the people otherwise it can’t work, violence is inherent, that’s why it always ends in bloodshed. Anyone who looks through history and thinks communism is preferable to capitalism needs to give their head a bit of a wobble, bread lines and piles of bodies Vs iPods and Nike trainers.... gee lemme think 🤔 When did I say that it wasn't communism? You've just thrown your own one onto that, I said plenty of people have died under both. Wonder whether there are any bodies or bread lines associated with iPods and Nike Trainers? www.supplychaindive.com/news/apple-supplier-china-labor-health-violations/515290/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/apple-admits-it-has-a-human-rights-problem-6898617.htmlwww.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/23/indonesia.johnaglionby1www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/25/female-cambodian-garment-workers-mass-faintingThat's two companies. Both of whom are far from the worst offenders in capitalism. Ignoring the fuel wars, the trade wars, the colonialist abuses, the austerity deaths, the foodbanks, etc. etc. There are plenty of problems with communism, but that death stat that is used all the time isn't really a decent comparison in any sense.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 19, 2020 21:35:53 GMT
Ah the old “that wasn’t real communism” line, well actually yes, it was, communism requires violence otherwise it can’t work, you necessarily have to bring the jackboot down on the people otherwise it can’t work, violence is inherent, that’s why it always ends in bloodshed. Anyone who looks through history and thinks communism is preferable to capitalism needs to give their head a bit of a wobble, bread lines and piles of bodies Vs iPods and Nike trainers.... gee lemme think 🤔 When did I say that it wasn't communism? You've just thrown your own one onto that, I said plenty of people have died under both. Wonder whether there are any bodies or bread lines associated with iPods and Nike Trainers? www.supplychaindive.com/news/apple-supplier-china-labor-health-violations/515290/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/apple-admits-it-has-a-human-rights-problem-6898617.htmlwww.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/23/indonesia.johnaglionby1www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/25/female-cambodian-garment-workers-mass-faintingThat's two companies. Both of whom are far from the worst offenders in capitalism. Ignoring the fuel wars, the trade wars, the colonialist abuses, the austerity deaths, the foodbanks, etc. etc. There are plenty of problems with communism, but that death stat that is used all the time isn't really a decent comparison in any sense. I said millions died under communism and you said “well, under a communist dictator” implying that it wasnt communism that killed them but a communist dictator, but that’s what communism is, you have to bring people in line by force of arms, you can’t just say “ok my fellow countrymen, we’re going to give communism a go now”... it doesn’t work like that, you have to stomp on skulls to implement it, that’s why it always leads to bloodshed, communism is a byword for mass slaughter, it’s inherent.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 21:41:37 GMT
I said millions died under communism and you said “well, under a communist dictator” implying that it wasnt communism that killed them but a communist dictator, but that’s what communism is, you have to bring people in line by force of arms, you can’t just say “ok my fellow countrymen, we’re going to give communism a go now”... it doesn’t work like that, you have to stomp on skulls to implement it, that’s why it always leads to bloodshed, communism is a byword for mass slaughter, it’s inherent. Yep, because there has been no mass bloodshed for capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 19, 2020 21:41:37 GMT
Anyway, should probably return this thread back to its original topic.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 19, 2020 22:04:27 GMT
I said millions died under communism and you said “well, under a communist dictator” implying that it wasnt communism that killed them but a communist dictator, but that’s what communism is, you have to bring people in line by force of arms, you can’t just say “ok my fellow countrymen, we’re going to give communism a go now”... it doesn’t work like that, you have to stomp on skulls to implement it, that’s why it always leads to bloodshed, communism is a byword for mass slaughter, it’s inherent. Yep, because there has been no mass bloodshed for capitalism. War is not a capitalist endeavour, wars are waged by states, what you’re referring to would be better described as crony corporatism. Real capitalists like peace and trade over war.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2020 22:31:00 GMT
Yep, because there has been no mass bloodshed for capitalism. War is not a capitalist endeavour, wars are waged by states, what you’re referring to would be better described as crony corporatism. Real capitalists like peace and trade over war. 'It's not real capitalism' eh?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 19, 2020 22:41:48 GMT
Yep, because there has been no mass bloodshed for capitalism. War is not a capitalist endeavour, wars are waged by states, what you’re referring to would be better described as crony corporatism. Real capitalists like peace and trade over war. East India Company managed some fighting Capitalists have always made money from war
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jan 20, 2020 18:17:10 GMT
Flooding and hail stones the size of tennis balls now. Always moaning these Aussies 😁
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 20, 2020 18:56:56 GMT
Why did the fires started in the first place?
A mate said the people did it themselves. But why?, I asked. He said it requires 300°C degrees to make grass burn. And the sun can't do that by itself.
He must be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jan 20, 2020 22:45:37 GMT
Beware hysterical claims, if you search the Internet you can find tons of articles like the one below, lots of “experts” predictions have already passed their sell by date. amp.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver#click=https://t.co/Swjfa4t6YLA secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Jan 21, 2020 1:58:31 GMT
Beware hysterical claims, if you search the Internet you can find tons of articles like the one below, lots of “experts” predictions have already passed their sell by date. amp.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver#click=https://t.co/Swjfa4t6YLA secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. Re Oz fires - as I posted a few pages back - the media could easily link the current tragedy to numerous events from the past and conclude a similar chain of weather events and arson. Instead we have St Greta and the useful idiots promoting the globalist power control agenda. As a child of the 60’s I’ve witnessed most of the climate prophecies, from the next ice age through to where we are now via a couple of re-brands. In my lifetime, humanity should have vanished at least three times based on the science. Btw I’m not a climate change denier - I’m just skeptical of the “promoted MSM science/solution (Co2 reduction)” or that it’s mans industrialisation of the planet that has caused it, or as we’re now being told accelerating it. 20,000 years back a block of ice sat over most of the northern hemisphere and reached the M25 in Britain. 10,000 years later it had receded to halfway between Scotland and Iceland with a landmass called Doggerland (now the North Sea) between Britain and the Continent reaching as far south as the now English Channel and occupied by Iron Age settlers etc..there was even a freshwater lake in the middle fed by the Thames from the west and Rhine from the east. You’d also have seen Australia joined with Indonesia and Russia/USA joined. It took another 2000 years of melting glaciers and a Tsunami caused by a big chunk of Norway falling off that finally flooded Doggerland to it’s underwater grave and rising sea levels the globe over that give us the map we have today. There is no question that the climate is changing, there is no question that man’s behaviour on the planet has caused changes to the environment and if these issues were honestly pitched then the first thing to do is to separate. Pollution, garbage, toxic waste, river dams, deforestation is not climate change. It is man made and solvable given the will and cooperation of global governments. Climate change is something else altogether and IMO something we can do dick all about. A huge ball of plasma has been spewing it’s radiation and magnetic field since our spinning lump of gas and rock formed - and the Sun IMO mixed with its relationship with the moon and its own influence on our tides and weather generally, is still the one and only cause. The Carbon shit (IMO) is shit. We’re only 200ppm above the minimum 180ppm mix of Co2 in our atmosphere that sustains life. Plants, trees etc.. live on it. Farmers pump neat CO2 into their green houses to generate bigger fleshy fruit. There’s not much to dislike really. Dig a bit deeper and you’ll find the greenest the earth has ever been (Dinosaurs) the CO2 was 800ppm. Intersting stuff but ignored. Do people ever think the sun we wake up to everyday doesn’t change either? Minor orbital aberrations or through its solas minimus/maximus phases which cause etc..? Do people wonder why it’s only certain countries/cultures that targeted for this? Do people wonder why Germany who’ve embraced the Green project have the highest energy costs in the world? Do people wonder why we replaced windmills with steam etc.. Do people wonder why there are huge cancer rates in a province in China next to a lake caused by western Neodymium mining - required for wind turbine magnets. Or that we paid turbine owners £12m last week to stop the blades? Does anyone wonder why spoiling rural landscapes with fibreglass bird chompers is prefered over fracking? Do people question that every migrant that crosses from the 3rd world to the 1st increases his/her/it/gay/bi/trans/les assumed but unexplained carbon footprint x10? Do people wonder why Obama has just bought a seafront mansion in Martha's Vineyard 2m above sea level? Clearly he’s concerned? Do people wonder why we’re not promoting nuclear fusion? It is after all the cheapest. Do people know that the average hybrid car has to do 60000 miles to be carbon neutral? Do people wonder why Trump said fuck this, rejuvenated the USA’s own energy industry leading to the worlds strongest economy? Or do we listen to St Greta………………..?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 21, 2020 18:24:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin66 on Jan 21, 2020 18:31:32 GMT
Apparently plastic is not an issue.
|
|