Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
From a couple of pages back...this lot doesn't look very 'political' to me...
A summer ice free ocean or almost so existed 7000 years ago (Copenhagen Uni research) a time known as the Sahara Warm Period. This was of the same order as the Minoan Warm Period..
The polar bear has been around for 150,000 years, they're still here and so are we.
turbobloke said:
mko9 said:
Why is it really a problem if the Arctic Ocean is ice free in the summer time? It was probably ice free during the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc, right? It was as hot or hotter than today for a couple hundred years.
Like the polar bear, an ice free Arctic is probably more symbol than any useful indicator of climate doom.
Doom is the currency of alarmism so there's lots of it about. The Roman Warm Period (2200 years ago) and the Minoan Warm Period (3400 years ago) were significantly warmer than the present. Like the polar bear, an ice free Arctic is probably more symbol than any useful indicator of climate doom.
A summer ice free ocean or almost so existed 7000 years ago (Copenhagen Uni research) a time known as the Sahara Warm Period. This was of the same order as the Minoan Warm Period..
The polar bear has been around for 150,000 years, they're still here and so are we.
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
zygalski said:
LongQ said:
No censorship from me durbie. How could there be since the content was not visible.
However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Better get Turbospam to delete about half his posts in this thread then.However if its the usual science stuff that you and others are so hell bent on posting you should have no problem adding it to the original Science focused thread.
Unless, of course, it is your aim to deflect this Political observation thread from its intended purpose.
Have you picked him up on it every time he posts a graph or data in here?
There are, however, some posters who are active on both threads and a few who seem only to want to play on this one and rarely or never attempt to make any comments related to purely political matters. Quite why they have such a problem separating their Science and their Politics is unclear. Unless, perhaps, they see the two subject areas as being extremely well mixed when concerned with what has come to be called Climate Change in preference to the original subject label - Global Warming.
However I note your deflective comment and evident self identification as a target.
My comments about political versus scientific content really don't apply in your case.
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 16th August 11:06
If you're serious about it you need to nip it in the bud - report posts, get mods involved - before it can get started.
If people can include science content in their posts then it's only equitable that people can address that content, and without any chirade of including obigatory political comment to make it qualify. You can play absurd games like that if you like but I'm not doing it
...thinking about it your posts on the science thread make more sense now as they're often rather light on science content.
eg
LongQ said:
Well, assuming that such technology can be made cost effective and not simply add to complexity in any way or eat into the power generation capacity that is the primary source of claims that CCS is required ...
If I was a country leader and my plan required economic development that was somewhat guaranteed to need dispensation to ignore CO2 output constraints for some considerable period into the future, this CCS era development would be excellent news.
I could create a plan to construct some CO2 extraction plants - maybe even get a couple working to show willing - and then let the other committed countries carry the burden of trying to achieve any reduction targets that might be set for as long as their economy can support the cheaper manufacturing operations that I will be able to offer.
What happens when those countries do a Venezuela, economically, and can no longer afford to my goods is another matter - but with luck it will take a few decades to get to that point and by then it would not be a problem that I would need to deal with.
Does anyone have the definitive numbers for the correct amount of CO2 that the atmosphere should be carrying on a location by location basis? Also a detailed plan for how balance CO2 release with both the natural use and exchange of the gas and the man made extraction process?
Would it be most cost effective and solve a larger number of problems if we simply decided to reduce the human population?
Presumably the gibberish sentence in bold is the 'science thread compliance' bit? If I was a country leader and my plan required economic development that was somewhat guaranteed to need dispensation to ignore CO2 output constraints for some considerable period into the future, this CCS era development would be excellent news.
I could create a plan to construct some CO2 extraction plants - maybe even get a couple working to show willing - and then let the other committed countries carry the burden of trying to achieve any reduction targets that might be set for as long as their economy can support the cheaper manufacturing operations that I will be able to offer.
What happens when those countries do a Venezuela, economically, and can no longer afford to my goods is another matter - but with luck it will take a few decades to get to that point and by then it would not be a problem that I would need to deal with.
Does anyone have the definitive numbers for the correct amount of CO2 that the atmosphere should be carrying on a location by location basis? Also a detailed plan for how balance CO2 release with both the natural use and exchange of the gas and the man made extraction process?
Would it be most cost effective and solve a larger number of problems if we simply decided to reduce the human population?
Clearly you want to be as negatively disruptive as the others as far as any sensible discussion is concerned.
If you don't understand the inference of the point I was making in terms of setting government policies and the need to have such policies coordinated around the world (perhaps the only part that science could even be considered to play in that policy making) then you are not as perceptive as I had come to think you were.
Oh well, my bad - as people used to say.
Of course, none of this matters to the planet or its human population. Nothing does on this remote brackish backwater of the internet as so many brilliant but seemingly empty minds are here to remind us regularly.
LoonyTunes said:
From a couple of pages back...this lot doesn't look very 'political' to me...
A summer ice free ocean or almost so existed 7000 years ago (Copenhagen Uni research) a time known as the Sahara Warm Period. This was of the same order as the Minoan Warm Period..
The polar bear has been around for 150,000 years, they're still here and so are we.
Another miss by a country mile. The thread posting history is still around for people to check.turbobloke said:
mko9 said:
Why is it really a problem if the Arctic Ocean is ice free in the summer time? It was probably ice free during the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc, right? It was as hot or hotter than today for a couple hundred years.
Like the polar bear, an ice free Arctic is probably more symbol than any useful indicator of climate doom.
Doom is the currency of alarmism so there's lots of it about. The Roman Warm Period (2200 years ago) and the Minoan Warm Period (3400 years ago) were significantly warmer than the present. Like the polar bear, an ice free Arctic is probably more symbol than any useful indicator of climate doom.
A summer ice free ocean or almost so existed 7000 years ago (Copenhagen Uni research) a time known as the Sahara Warm Period. This was of the same order as the Minoan Warm Period..
The polar bear has been around for 150,000 years, they're still here and so are we.
Your perception is clouded by the fact that you didn't want to or chose not to trace the post back to its roots. As i mentioned previosuly it's reasonable on a public forum to reply to posts from the public
Originally I posted in this climate politics thread about an anniversary laugh at the wildly inaccurate testimony of Hansen to congress about arctic summer sea ice disappearing within 10 years at most, and 2018 was the tenth year. I noted using phraseology from the time that a Dem politician regarded Hansen as a 'climate prophet' ho ho ho. My point as I commented at the time was clearly about the folly of politicians taking the word of climate activists, activists who serially get it completely wrong;
Then along came hairykrishna. I popped into the thread later on, and found a post from hk with a chart showing an arctic summer sea ice trend (iirc) and duly thanked hairy for confirming that Hansen and a significant number of his fellow climate alarmists were wrong yet again. as the ice was still around to the tune of millions of square km. Then other posts on arctic ice led to mine, as quoted by you above. You need to have a word with hairykrishna for diverting the thread.
Next! On the other hand don't bother.
turbobloke said:
Another miss by a country mile. The thread posting history is still around for people to check.
Your perception is clouded by the fact that you didn't want to or chose not to trace the post back to its roots. As i mentioned previosuly it's reasonable on a public forum to reply to posts from the public
Originally I posted in this climate politics thread about an anniversary laugh at the wildly inaccurate testimony of Hansen to congress about arctic summer sea ice disappearing within 10 years at most, and 2018 was the tenth year. I noted using phraseology from the time that a Dem politician regarded Hansen as a 'climate prophet' ho ho ho. My point as I commented at the time was clearly about the folly of politicians taking the word of climate activists, activists who serially get it completely wrong;
Then along came hairykrishna. I popped into the thread later on, and found a post from hk with a chart showing an arctic summer sea ice trend (iirc) and duly thanked hairy for confirming that Hansen and a significant number of his fellow climate alarmists were wrong yet again. as the ice was still around to the tune of millions of square km. Then other posts on arctic ice led to mine, as quoted by you above. You need to have a word with hairykrishna for diverting the thread.
Next! On the other hand don't bother.
Twaddle. That IS the entire history of your chat with mk09 as quoted. You could have simply ignored his comment in order not to pollute the thread any further but decided you couldn't let it go.Your perception is clouded by the fact that you didn't want to or chose not to trace the post back to its roots. As i mentioned previosuly it's reasonable on a public forum to reply to posts from the public
Originally I posted in this climate politics thread about an anniversary laugh at the wildly inaccurate testimony of Hansen to congress about arctic summer sea ice disappearing within 10 years at most, and 2018 was the tenth year. I noted using phraseology from the time that a Dem politician regarded Hansen as a 'climate prophet' ho ho ho. My point as I commented at the time was clearly about the folly of politicians taking the word of climate activists, activists who serially get it completely wrong;
Then along came hairykrishna. I popped into the thread later on, and found a post from hk with a chart showing an arctic summer sea ice trend (iirc) and duly thanked hairy for confirming that Hansen and a significant number of his fellow climate alarmists were wrong yet again. as the ice was still around to the tune of millions of square km. Then other posts on arctic ice led to mine, as quoted by you above. You need to have a word with hairykrishna for diverting the thread.
Next! On the other hand don't bother.
Here's the evidence, easily verified by anyone interested enough to check.
Then look what happened after Countdown posted more evidence that Hansen and the rest were wildly inaccurate in their doom-laden forecasts, in came Hairy at 1005 hrs with a trend / chart. HK's 'hardly good news' input on a natural trend was the next post but one to mine.
Neither of these posts were about climate politics, check it out here.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Yesterday at 0919 hrs I said:
Behold the climate science-politics interface in action.
In 2008 Congress Committee Chair Ed Markey Democrat said:
Dr Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.
Was he? Twenty years earlier in June1988 Hansen had already testified that he was 99% certain that global warming was the result of human activity.
Hansen's testimony in 2008 wooed democrats in particular with a gloomy forecast that in 5 to 10 years the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice.
Ten years after the 2008 performance and thirty years after the original prophesy in 1988, the climate prophet of doom and the politicians who truly believed him have seen his forecast melt away - unlike Arctic summer sea ice which occupied 3.2 million square miles last month, July 2018. Hansen is hardly alone in this regard.
Balchen: summer sea ice free by 2000
Orheim: N polar ice cap gone 2008
Barber: summer sea ice free by 2008
Serreze: summer sea ice free by 2008
Zwally: summer sea ice free by 2012
Maslowski: summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (I) summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (II): summer sea ice free by 2016
Hansen: summer sea ice free by 2018
Yet we still have costly political policies based on > thirty years of one false agw prophet after another.
That is clearly about climate politics and the folly of politicians believing agw supporters,In 2008 Congress Committee Chair Ed Markey Democrat said:
Dr Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.
Was he? Twenty years earlier in June1988 Hansen had already testified that he was 99% certain that global warming was the result of human activity.
Hansen's testimony in 2008 wooed democrats in particular with a gloomy forecast that in 5 to 10 years the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice.
Ten years after the 2008 performance and thirty years after the original prophesy in 1988, the climate prophet of doom and the politicians who truly believed him have seen his forecast melt away - unlike Arctic summer sea ice which occupied 3.2 million square miles last month, July 2018. Hansen is hardly alone in this regard.
Balchen: summer sea ice free by 2000
Orheim: N polar ice cap gone 2008
Barber: summer sea ice free by 2008
Serreze: summer sea ice free by 2008
Zwally: summer sea ice free by 2012
Maslowski: summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (I) summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (II): summer sea ice free by 2016
Hansen: summer sea ice free by 2018
Yet we still have costly political policies based on > thirty years of one false agw prophet after another.
Then look what happened after Countdown posted more evidence that Hansen and the rest were wildly inaccurate in their doom-laden forecasts, in came Hairy at 1005 hrs with a trend / chart. HK's 'hardly good news' input on a natural trend was the next post but one to mine.
Neither of these posts were about climate politics, check it out here.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
LoonyTunes said:
From a couple of pages back...this lot doesn't look very 'political' to me...
A summer ice free ocean or almost so existed 7000 years ago (Copenhagen Uni research) a time known as the Sahara Warm Period. This was of the same order as the Minoan Warm Period..
The polar bear has been around for 150,000 years, they're still here and so are we.
And who initiated that arctic sea ice discussion? Why turbobloke of course turbobloke said:
mko9 said:
Why is it really a problem if the Arctic Ocean is ice free in the summer time? It was probably ice free during the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, etc, right? It was as hot or hotter than today for a couple hundred years.
Like the polar bear, an ice free Arctic is probably more symbol than any useful indicator of climate doom.
Doom is the currency of alarmism so there's lots of it about. The Roman Warm Period (2200 years ago) and the Minoan Warm Period (3400 years ago) were significantly warmer than the present. Like the polar bear, an ice free Arctic is probably more symbol than any useful indicator of climate doom.
A summer ice free ocean or almost so existed 7000 years ago (Copenhagen Uni research) a time known as the Sahara Warm Period. This was of the same order as the Minoan Warm Period..
The polar bear has been around for 150,000 years, they're still here and so are we.
LoonyTunes said:
I agree they weren't. But you could have brought it an end when mk09 commented on the topic by simply not saying anything further.
Anyway, here's yet another attrition loop, well done.
Keep the praise for yourself, you started it by having yet another baseless pop at me and failing.Anyway, here's yet another attrition loop, well done.
On a public forum it's reasonable to reply to posts from the public.
Can you point me to a political post from you, gadgetmac, El stovey, durbster, zygalski, jjlynn27 and so on, in the past week? Sure they can reply to the public too but I've listed my climate politics posts from the past few days which have been diverted by agw supporters (anyone on the thread will have seen it).
-Hansen testimony and the ridiculous political policies deriving from belief in false agw prophets
-Climate politics going heretical in Canada, Australia, Brazil
-Failed poltical lobbying for a non-existent Epoch named after an alleged phenomenon
-False agw agitptop regarging LA wildfires and UK summer deaths in the recent
-UN climate shenanigans in financial jeopardy
-One-sided censorious tendencies in the climate politiksphere
Where and when for example are agw supporters seen originating on-topic political posts? Can't remember any at all nor from any other agw supporter, Quote one or two with a link or two and show the thread where they are. Or rather don't as your attrition loop is a waste of time and now sits on a filter list.
Back to climate politics...recycling policy applied to plastics is making ocean litter worse, says Dr Mikko Paunio.
https://www.thegwpf.org/new-report-recycling-plast...
turbobloke said:
Here's the evidence, easily verified by anyone interested enough to check.
Then look what happened after Countdown posted more evidence that Hansen and the rest were wildly inaccurate in their doom-laden forecasts, in came Hairy at 1005 hrs with a trend / chart. HK's 'hardly good news' input on a natural trend was the next post but one to mine.
Neither of these posts were about climate politics, check it out here.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
No doubt LongQ will approve of your sophistry.Yesterday at 0919 hrs I said:
Behold the climate science-politics interface in action.
In 2008 Congress Committee Chair Ed Markey Democrat said:
Dr Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.
Was he? Twenty years earlier in June1988 Hansen had already testified that he was 99% certain that global warming was the result of human activity.
Hansen's testimony in 2008 wooed democrats in particular with a gloomy forecast that in 5 to 10 years the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice.
Ten years after the 2008 performance and thirty years after the original prophesy in 1988, the climate prophet of doom and the politicians who truly believed him have seen his forecast melt away - unlike Arctic summer sea ice which occupied 3.2 million square miles last month, July 2018. Hansen is hardly alone in this regard.
Balchen: summer sea ice free by 2000
Orheim: N polar ice cap gone 2008
Barber: summer sea ice free by 2008
Serreze: summer sea ice free by 2008
Zwally: summer sea ice free by 2012
Maslowski: summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (I) summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (II): summer sea ice free by 2016
Hansen: summer sea ice free by 2018
Yet we still have costly political policies based on > thirty years of one false agw prophet after another.
That is clearly about climate politics and the folly of politicians believing agw supporters,In 2008 Congress Committee Chair Ed Markey Democrat said:
Dr Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet.
Was he? Twenty years earlier in June1988 Hansen had already testified that he was 99% certain that global warming was the result of human activity.
Hansen's testimony in 2008 wooed democrats in particular with a gloomy forecast that in 5 to 10 years the Arctic would be free of summer sea ice.
Ten years after the 2008 performance and thirty years after the original prophesy in 1988, the climate prophet of doom and the politicians who truly believed him have seen his forecast melt away - unlike Arctic summer sea ice which occupied 3.2 million square miles last month, July 2018. Hansen is hardly alone in this regard.
Balchen: summer sea ice free by 2000
Orheim: N polar ice cap gone 2008
Barber: summer sea ice free by 2008
Serreze: summer sea ice free by 2008
Zwally: summer sea ice free by 2012
Maslowski: summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (I) summer sea ice free by 2013
Wadhams (II): summer sea ice free by 2016
Hansen: summer sea ice free by 2018
Yet we still have costly political policies based on > thirty years of one false agw prophet after another.
Then look what happened after Countdown posted more evidence that Hansen and the rest were wildly inaccurate in their doom-laden forecasts, in came Hairy at 1005 hrs with a trend / chart. HK's 'hardly good news' input on a natural trend was the next post but one to mine.
Neither of these posts were about climate politics, check it out here.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Lets face it - for you, posting about the science WITHOUT lacing your posts with politicized rhetoric about green blobs, fraud, taxes etc would be like chopping your legs off. That's why you post here and not in the science forum where it's not a good look to bring your politics with you.
I think it's fair to assume that you wouldn't want this thread moderated to keep it to the politics, just like longq doesn't really want it either.
kerplunk said:
No doubt LongQ will approve of your sophistry.
The rest = filtered.Who knows, apart from LongQ.
The accuracy however is unquestionable.
Don't you have anything to say regarding the thread title, climate politics? Apparently not!
Somebody said that posts such as yours should be reported. Who was it?
This is a fascinating time to be discussing climate politics with the USA, Canada, Australia and Brazil centre stage. More politics (not that anything is likely to get discussed with one agw supporter after another launching diversions):
Low carbon uritrottoirs - really? Another great political ecopolicy going down well.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/13/paris-eco-friend...
turbobloke said:
Can you point me to a political post from you, gadgetmac, El stovey, durbster, zygalski, jjlynn27 and so on, in the past week? Sure they can reply to the public too but I've listed my climate politics posts from the past few days which have been diverted by agw supporters (anyone on the thread will have seen it).
A quick flick back shows Gadgetmac's 'political' post in response to your post.gadgetmac said:
So, TURBOBLOKE (hint: Not Dicky)
When he signed that letter was he signing for himself or on behalf of the International Arctic Research Centre? Only you’ve quoted the International Arctic Research Centre in your post as being an institution “committing heresy against agw doctrine” so I assume they have put their stamp of approval on it?
I don’t know the answer so am reliant upon you not spinning this into something its not. I mean its not like you haven’t blown your 15 minutes for today by a factor of at least five.
If thats the IARC’s stance then fine but please supply some form of substantiation.
Cheers.
I'm sure there are others from all concerned. The problem is you saturate this thread with so many posts with graphs and links (mostly dodgy) that all people like El stovey, durbster, gadgetmac, zygalski, jjlynn27 and so on have time to do is respond to them as you are such a prolific agent-provocateur. When he signed that letter was he signing for himself or on behalf of the International Arctic Research Centre? Only you’ve quoted the International Arctic Research Centre in your post as being an institution “committing heresy against agw doctrine” so I assume they have put their stamp of approval on it?
I don’t know the answer so am reliant upon you not spinning this into something its not. I mean its not like you haven’t blown your 15 minutes for today by a factor of at least five.
If thats the IARC’s stance then fine but please supply some form of substantiation.
Cheers.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
No doubt LongQ will approve of your sophistry.
Don't you have anything to say regarding the thread title, climate politics? Apparently not!mko9 said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
If all the enquiries found nothing wrong, why did somebody think it was important enough to want it releasing to the public ?
Because fossil fuel companies have a vested interest in keeping their businesses profitable, just as tobacco companies did.mko9 said:
Fossil fuel companies are selling an energy source (that has certain attributes like transportability and energy density), nothing more. There is no law that says Exxon can't make money off solar panels, wind turbines, or any other method of energy generation. The reason they don't is not because of some grand conspiracy of the fossil fuel industry, but because it is less cost effective than oil/natural gas/coal. As soon as the fossil fuel industry can make money hand over fist selling some other energy source, they will.
Err, the bit in bold here is your answer.mko9 said:
Your analogy to the tobacco industry is terrible.
Apart from the fact it's the same organisation behind much of turbobloke's propaganda that was behind the smoking propaganda, and they're using the exact same tactics (to create uncertainty in the public consciousness around the science, in order to delay counter-measures for as long as possible).mko9 said:
The argument against fossil fuels is that we should be using alternative energy sources like wind, or solar, or tide, or whatever. Fossil fuel companies could start providing any of those things, they can just make more money pumping oil.
No, the argument against fossil fuels is that their continued use is warming the planet. The switch to renewable sources is only because it's the only alternative we have at the moment.
gadgetmac said:
Turboblokes 15 minutes ran out at 9:16 this morning 
Which means your understanding of averages ran out at 7.46 this evening BTW where was the climate politics in your post? Here's some.
If it’s not in the bag, when is the last straw not the last straw?
https://apnews.com/71082d3bb77e44a59408a69bc58caf8...
If there's evidence supporting the article content that this can do good, has done good, and by jolly it does more good in future, then good.
durbster said:
mko9 said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
If all the enquiries found nothing wrong, why did somebody think it was important enough to want it releasing to the public ?
Because fossil fuel companies have a vested interest in keeping their businesses profitable, just as tobacco companies did.mko9 said:
Fossil fuel companies are selling an energy source (that has certain attributes like transportability and energy density), nothing more. There is no law that says Exxon can't make money off solar panels, wind turbines, or any other method of energy generation. The reason they don't is not because of some grand conspiracy of the fossil fuel industry, but because it is less cost effective than oil/natural gas/coal. As soon as the fossil fuel industry can make money hand over fist selling some other energy source, they will.
Err, the bit in bold here is your answer.mko9 said:
Your analogy to the tobacco industry is terrible.
Apart from the fact it's the same organisation behind much of turbobloke's propaganda that was behind the smoking propaganda, and they're using the exact same tactics (to create uncertainty in the public consciousness around the science, in order to delay counter-measures for as long as possible).mko9 said:
The argument against fossil fuels is that we should be using alternative energy sources like wind, or solar, or tide, or whatever. Fossil fuel companies could start providing any of those things, they can just make more money pumping oil.
No, the argument against fossil fuels is that their continued use is warming the planet. The switch to renewable sources is only because it's the only alternative we have at the moment.
ks. On both points. Please publish the irrefutable proofturbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
Turboblokes 15 minutes ran out at 9:16 this morning
Which means your understanding of averages ran out at 7.46 this evening I admire your dogged determination to stick to your line though, however ridiculous it is
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
gadgetmac said:
Turboblokes 15 minutes ran out at 9:16 this morning
Which means your understanding of averages ran out at 7.46 this evening I admire your dogged determination to stick to your line though, however ridiculous it is
Today was nothing. In the good old days it could be up to an hour per night involving fascinating discussions on road safety with vonhosen & co over in SP&L. Then there were periods of abstinence when abroad or working on time-consuming assignments. It averages out but you don't see how, never mind.
Yes years, you give away the error of your ways right there. Your own grasp of averages really is weak if you think a few days of barely above average posting can make a dent on something approaching 6000 previous days. In any case you're likely basing your view on your own thinking and typing speeds, say n'more.
Incidentally it's not about me and not you either but thanks for the interest it's flattering.
In another attempt to keep the thread focused on climate politics, here we go again with an exothermic reaction as climate policy mixes it with law enforcement pollcy. Crime gas is not guilty, naturally.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/15/global-warming-tel...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff