Climate protesters block roads

[br d]

motco said:

/Hudson/
"Well why dontcha put her in charge?"

[johnxjsc1985]

Jazzy Jag said:

I thought it was Wednesday Addams

ha ha good one it may pass a few by though

[TeamD]

br d said:

/Hudson/
"Well why dontcha put her in charge?"

Likewise to passing people by

[.:ian:.]

Ultrafunkula said:

I remember the middle one from little house on the prairie

The one on the right is from Steptoe and Son!

[kev1974]

Coolbanana said:

There is no need to debate the fact that human intervention has accelerated Climate Change; the overwhelming majority of Scientists concerned with the debate have accepted this - greater than 90%. The debate in that sense, is over.

The debate has since moved on to how it should be tackled, solutions. Therefore Deniers can largely be ignored now so long as Governments are proactively dealing with the solving of the issues being faced in this regard and ensuring agreed targets are met. Deniers will be dragged along.

In agreeing solutions, Laws and Economic factors come to the fore, how best to make and enforce solutions that will cause the least disruption and hardship.

Groups such as XR want this debate to be front and centre of Government tasks and want to keep this focus sharp - they do not want complacency to creep in, procrastination due to too many ignorant Deniers allowing the current solution debates to slow or stall. They are extremists, yes. They have unrealistic goals, yes. However, they are afraid the debates, solutions and targets will be harmed by an apathetic population who need to be forced to comply with new CC measures.

This one isn't for Public vote...the Public will largely be selfish, ignorant and stupid because the solutions will, to some degree, hurt financially or at the very least, demand a change to past norms and ways of life. Few will voluntarily adopt the necessary changes. So Governments must work with the prevailing Science and enforce solutions and targets.

probably worth heading over to China or Indonesia and giving them a good talking to

or if that's too risky or too much effort or not skateboardy enough, at least try demonstrating outside their embassies rather than Oxford Circus.

at least be honest with the public that it's countries like that where the problem is, not the DLR.

in the meantime we should stop the ludicrous emissions caused by needlessly flying and shipping things like avocados and coconut milk/water across the planet.

and give us a few plastic straws back, the paper and metal ones are both rubbish, and it was never the few that were wrongly discarded in this country that ended up in the turtles anyway!

[A Winner Is You]

Funny how the same people who say we should give 16 year olds the vote are angry when the opinions of a 16 year old are challenged.

[markcoznottz]

Helicopter123 said:

Coolbanana said:

There is no need to debate the fact that human intervention has accelerated Climate Change; the overwhelming majority of Scientists concerned with the debate have accepted this - greater than 90%. The debate in that sense, is over.

The debate has since moved on to how it should be tackled, solutions. Therefore Deniers can largely be ignored now so long as Governments are proactively dealing with the solving of the issues being faced in this regard and ensuring agreed targets are met. Deniers will be dragged along.

In agreeing solutions, Laws and Economic factors come to the fore, how best to make and enforce solutions that will cause the least disruption and hardship.

Groups such as XR want this debate to be front and centre of Government tasks and want to keep this focus sharp - they do not want complacency to creep in, procrastination due to too many ignorant Deniers allowing the current solution debates to slow or stall. They are extremists, yes. They have unrealistic goals, yes. However, they are afraid the debates, solutions and targets will be harmed by an apathetic population who need to be forced to comply with new CC measures.

This one isn't for Public vote...the Public will largely be selfish, ignorant and stupid because the solutions will, to some degree, hurt financially or at the very least, demand a change to past norms and ways of life. Few will voluntarily adopt the necessary changes. So Governments must work with the prevailing Science and enforce solutions and targets.

Quite simply, one of the best posts I've seen on PH.

Well said.

You are easily impressed. Virtue signalling rocks. I notice you run (ran?) a cayenne and/or a 997? Not exactly energy efficient or low emission are they. Another say as I doer.

[NRS]

motco said:

What sixteen year old, Asperger's or not, would willingly wear pigtails like some synthetic Polyanna?

She's Swedish - it's pretty normal here in Norway/Sweden.

rxe said:

I remember being taught the following FACTS in geography in about 1977:

- we were about to enter a new ice age (didn’t come true)
- oil would run out in 20 years (didn’t come true)
- we would mine minerals from the sea bed (was actually a genuine CIA conspiracy, look it up)

Makes me deeply sceptical about any arguments along the lines of “science is all over, done, dusted”.

Climate change is just a massive misuse of science from many people. Often deliberate, sometimes just from people not having a clue about stuff. And on both sides. An example could be to use a few of the above. Take oil running out first. This was repeated as a risk early when I was at school too (started late 1990's). However there has been a huge change since then. The reason oil has not run out is that it wasn't that it would run out in terms of there being none left, but commercially not viable. And if you look at the oil price it has gone from say below $11/ barrel in 1998 to $74 now, and was nearly $140 a few years ago. So if you have a 1000% plus increase then of course it will change things. In addition people have been looking for more oil over time too. (Yes, simplied as not including inflation etc but point is still the same).

In addition, I'd suspect the "running out very soon" was probably the extremists of the time. I see this all the time with complex models which provide a range of answers. People pick the example that they want to, and publish it. So in the case of oil running out very soon it would be pushed by people wanting an oil price increase perhaps. In the case of the extreme man-made climate change models those will be used by the hardcore green people. The issue is those predictions often don't occur because they were a very low probability case (maybe 1% or less). So when people have pushed the extreme examples and they don't happen the experts are written off as not knowing anything and just got it wrong. That's often been done by man-made climate change deniers - "oh, the ones saying they were the last generation in 2019 have had kids, climate change is just a big hoax!" type thing. When the expected case might be perfectly correct and within the prediction ranges. As far as I am aware this is actually the case with current warming.

Mining of the seabeds is another example - it is still a possibility, but economically it is still too expensive compared to mining on land, therefore it doesn't happen. Minerals underwater are generally going to be less concentrated than on land, so you need to mine more to be economic, which costs more. Or perhaps you need to be in very deep water - which anybody who knows much about the oil industry will know = greater cost for the tech.

I'm a geologist, and often (and we do it ourselves) there is some stuff which is true, but misplaced. For example; the world was much warmer in the past. True, easy to prove relatively (although in a way it's basically the same as any climate science - so if you write all the data/models off for man-made climate change then you might as well do the same for those saying it used to be hotter). However it may have been hotter, but no one was using the worlds resources like they are now, they didn't have most of the world's population living along the coast, they didn't have a massive population increase that needs feeding at the same time as we wipe out areas of food production etc. As many have said here before, one of the huge problems is population growth putting a strain on our use of resources, and this is a massive issue even if we ignore climate change. When you add that we know there is warming there will be additional changes that cause problems in the world as it's "set up" now. There is plenty we could do to combat climate change which is needed anyway, but completely ignored in the focus to cut CO2.

We know the world is warming, that is a fact. If it keeps going sea levels will rise. So why not expand cities away from the sea? Instead we keep building more and more at the coast. Often where a river enters the sea. In the past this would flood, deposit sediments and top up the sinking/eroding ground. Now we manage the river so this doesn't happen, and the ground sinks fast due to the huge weight we've dumped on top of it = flooding issues. Or building on the nice flat riverbanks - which are floodplains, and so will flood. However then everything is so simplified that it becomes "flooding = man made climate change. Perhaps (often overdone in reality), but why don't we build away from the rivers? Further inland?

On the other side many deniers love to pick obscure examples of a specific location to prove it's not happening, pick highly unlikely predictions (either because it's bad science, or a worst case scenario, which is extremely unlikely to happen) to disprove models, and just write off lots of good science because it doesn't match with their view. See below for an example of misuse of model data. And as for shutting down scientists who don't agree - there is always scientists who don't agree. Sometimes it's because it's so uncertain, other times it is just because there is contrarian people out there (I'm often one myself). Other times there is a clear bias in their work. And at some point they won't get jobs. Take investing in stocks. There is a number of vocal people who keep predicting the stock market will collapse etc. They'll get it right say every 10 years. However if you actually listened to them you'd never invest in stocks - and you'd be massively poorer as a result. Therefore the same type of thing will happen to scientists who don't agree with the strong consensus at some point. They can keep talking, but eventually they'll be ignored and not get money from most groups/unis etc.

I build predictive models at work (ironically a lot have been to work out if an oil field is commercial!). In a small field often we'll find that in say 10% of the cases the field won't be commercial to produce, but in 90% it is good. On a portfolio level where you develop 10 fields then it is fine, as even though (theoretically) 1 will fail the other 9 cover it. However often people who don't understand it will pick the failed example, and say "you got it wrong!!!". How could you be so stupid/ you don't know what you're doing (well, they don't say this, but it's a kinda silly simplification)?! In reality anyone who knows the models and how they work will know that every time there was a 10% change it would not work out. And you might get really lucky, or really unlucky, and it's outside the range you predicted totally. However most of the time your predictions are approximately good enough. And that's likely to be the case with the climate change models - ignore the outliers the crazy greens pick up and shout about. But the general pic is we are likely to face issues ahead due to how our current lifestyle is organised - where we live, how much resources we need etc.

Anyway, long enough post so best to stop now!

[kurt535]

REALIST123 said:

dandarez said:

So, the Swedish schoolkid (invited by Green nutter Lucas) is calling for a General Strike.

And look who else has got themselves in the piccy - Ed (bacon buttie) Milliband and none other than the next leader of the LibDUMS, Layla (you know it's just your foolish pride) Moran.

https://whatsnew2day.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

We - sorry, 'THEY' have lost the plot completely.

Wow! I’ve just seen her being entertained by that motley bunch of idiots who are supposed to be leading us.

Don’t they see how stupid they look, taking advice from a barely literate, wet behind the ears puppet?

The world’s gone mad.

This is one of the saddest posts Ive seen in a long time on this site. I genuinely feel sorry for you.

[kurt535]

NRS said:

motco said:

What sixteen year old, Asperger's or not, would willingly wear pigtails like some synthetic Polyanna?

She's Swedish - it's pretty normal here in Norway/Sweden.

rxe said:

I remember being taught the following FACTS in geography in about 1977:

- we were about to enter a new ice age (didn’t come true)
- oil would run out in 20 years (didn’t come true)
- we would mine minerals from the sea bed (was actually a genuine CIA conspiracy, look it up)

Makes me deeply sceptical about any arguments along the lines of “science is all over, done, dusted”.

Climate change is just a massive misuse of science from many people. Often deliberate, sometimes just from people not having a clue about stuff. And on both sides. An example could be to use a few of the above. Take oil running out first. This was repeated as a risk early when I was at school too (started late 1990's). However there has been a huge change since then. The reason oil has not run out is that it wasn't that it would run out in terms of there being none left, but commercially not viable. And if you look at the oil price it has gone from say below $11/ barrel in 1998 to $74 now, and was nearly $140 a few years ago. So if you have a 1000% plus increase then of course it will change things. In addition people have been looking for more oil over time too. (Yes, simplied as not including inflation etc but point is still the same).

In addition, I'd suspect the "running out very soon" was probably the extremists of the time. I see this all the time with complex models which provide a range of answers. People pick the example that they want to, and publish it. So in the case of oil running out very soon it would be pushed by people wanting an oil price increase perhaps. In the case of the extreme man-made climate change models those will be used by the hardcore green people. The issue is those predictions often don't occur because they were a very low probability case (maybe 1% or less). So when people have pushed the extreme examples and they don't happen the experts are written off as not knowing anything and just got it wrong. That's often been done by man-made climate change deniers - "oh, the ones saying they were the last generation in 2019 have had kids, climate change is just a big hoax!" type thing. When the expected case might be perfectly correct and within the prediction ranges. As far as I am aware this is actually the case with current warming.

Mining of the seabeds is another example - it is still a possibility, but economically it is still too expensive compared to mining on land, therefore it doesn't happen. Minerals underwater are generally going to be less concentrated than on land, so you need to mine more to be economic, which costs more. Or perhaps you need to be in very deep water - which anybody who knows much about the oil industry will know = greater cost for the tech.

I'm a geologist, and often (and we do it ourselves) there is some stuff which is true, but misplaced. For example; the world was much warmer in the past. True, easy to prove relatively (although in a way it's basically the same as any climate science - so if you write all the data/models off for man-made climate change then you might as well do the same for those saying it used to be hotter). However it may have been hotter, but no one was using the worlds resources like they are now, they didn't have most of the world's population living along the coast, they didn't have a massive population increase that needs feeding at the same time as we wipe out areas of food production etc. As many have said here before, one of the huge problems is population growth putting a strain on our use of resources, and this is a massive issue even if we ignore climate change. When you add that we know there is warming there will be additional changes that cause problems in the world as it's "set up" now. There is plenty we could do to combat climate change which is needed anyway, but completely ignored in the focus to cut CO2.

We know the world is warming, that is a fact. If it keeps going sea levels will rise. So why not expand cities away from the sea? Instead we keep building more and more at the coast. Often where a river enters the sea. In the past this would flood, deposit sediments and top up the sinking/eroding ground. Now we manage the river so this doesn't happen, and the ground sinks fast due to the huge weight we've dumped on top of it = flooding issues. Or building on the nice flat riverbanks - which are floodplains, and so will flood. However then everything is so simplified that it becomes "flooding = man made climate change. Perhaps (often overdone in reality), but why don't we build away from the rivers? Further inland?

On the other side many deniers love to pick obscure examples of a specific location to prove it's not happening, pick highly unlikely predictions (either because it's bad science, or a worst case scenario, which is extremely unlikely to happen) to disprove models, and just write off lots of good science because it doesn't match with their view. See below for an example of misuse of model data. And as for shutting down scientists who don't agree - there is always scientists who don't agree. Sometimes it's because it's so uncertain, other times it is just because there is contrarian people out there (I'm often one myself). Other times there is a clear bias in their work. And at some point they won't get jobs. Take investing in stocks. There is a number of vocal people who keep predicting the stock market will collapse etc. They'll get it right say every 10 years. However if you actually listened to them you'd never invest in stocks - and you'd be massively poorer as a result. Therefore the same type of thing will happen to scientists who don't agree with the strong consensus at some point. They can keep talking, but eventually they'll be ignored and not get money from most groups/unis etc.

I build predictive models at work (ironically a lot have been to work out if an oil field is commercial!). In a small field often we'll find that in say 10% of the cases the field won't be commercial to produce, but in 90% it is good. On a portfolio level where you develop 10 fields then it is fine, as even though (theoretically) 1 will fail the other 9 cover it. However often people who don't understand it will pick the failed example, and say "you got it wrong!!!". How could you be so stupid/ you don't know what you're doing (well, they don't say this, but it's a kinda silly simplification)?! In reality anyone who knows the models and how they work will know that every time there was a 10% change it would not work out. And you might get really lucky, or really unlucky, and it's outside the range you predicted totally. However most of the time your predictions are approximately good enough. And that's likely to be the case with the climate change models - ignore the outliers the crazy greens pick up and shout about. But the general pic is we are likely to face issues ahead due to how our current lifestyle is organised - where we live, how much resources we need etc.

Anyway, long enough post so best to stop now!

Full respect and then some to what you have just posted. Trolls will be along shortly....

[Randy Winkman]

A Winner Is You said:

Funny how the same people who say we should give 16 year olds the vote are angry when the opinions of a 16 year old are challenged.

I don't understand? I'm pleased she is being listened to. What's the problem?

[andy_s]

NRS said:

Anyway, long enough post so best to stop now!

Cheers NRS, that all makes sense and is more productive [personally] than being patronised, emotionally blackmailed, being told to accept hyperbolic argument without question and being presented with dubious catastrophic 'certainties' allied to suspiciously Marxististic solutions.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Randy Winkman said:

A Winner Is You said:

Funny how the same people who say we should give 16 year olds the vote are angry when the opinions of a 16 year old are challenged.

I don't understand? I'm pleased she is being listened to. What's the problem?

Of course they are in the same way they listen to the people with brexit.

[markcoznottz]

kurt535 said:

NRS said:

motco said:

What sixteen year old, Asperger's or not, would willingly wear pigtails like some synthetic Polyanna?

She's Swedish - it's pretty normal here in Norway/Sweden.

rxe said:

I remember being taught the following FACTS in geography in about 1977:

- we were about to enter a new ice age (didn’t come true)
- oil would run out in 20 years (didn’t come true)
- we would mine minerals from the sea bed (was actually a genuine CIA conspiracy, look it up)

Makes me deeply sceptical about any arguments along the lines of “science is all over, done, dusted”.

Climate change is just a massive misuse of science from many people. Often deliberate, sometimes just from people not having a clue about stuff. And on both sides. An example could be to use a few of the above. Take oil running out first. This was repeated as a risk early when I was at school too (started late 1990's). However there has been a huge change since then. The reason oil has not run out is that it wasn't that it would run out in terms of there being none left, but commercially not viable. And if you look at the oil price it has gone from say below $11/ barrel in 1998 to $74 now, and was nearly $140 a few years ago. So if you have a 1000% plus increase then of course it will change things. In addition people have been looking for more oil over time too. (Yes, simplied as not including inflation etc but point is still the same).

In addition, I'd suspect the "running out very soon" was probably the extremists of the time. I see this all the time with complex models which provide a range of answers. People pick the example that they want to, and publish it. So in the case of oil running out very soon it would be pushed by people wanting an oil price increase perhaps. In the case of the extreme man-made climate change models those will be used by the hardcore green people. The issue is those predictions often don't occur because they were a very low probability case (maybe 1% or less). So when people have pushed the extreme examples and they don't happen the experts are written off as not knowing anything and just got it wrong. That's often been done by man-made climate change deniers - "oh, the ones saying they were the last generation in 2019 have had kids, climate change is just a big hoax!" type thing. When the expected case might be perfectly correct and within the prediction ranges. As far as I am aware this is actually the case with current warming.

Mining of the seabeds is another example - it is still a possibility, but economically it is still too expensive compared to mining on land, therefore it doesn't happen. Minerals underwater are generally going to be less concentrated than on land, so you need to mine more to be economic, which costs more. Or perhaps you need to be in very deep water - which anybody who knows much about the oil industry will know = greater cost for the tech.

I'm a geologist, and often (and we do it ourselves) there is some stuff which is true, but misplaced. For example; the world was much warmer in the past. True, easy to prove relatively (although in a way it's basically the same as any climate science - so if you write all the data/models off for man-made climate change then you might as well do the same for those saying it used to be hotter). However it may have been hotter, but no one was using the worlds resources like they are now, they didn't have most of the world's population living along the coast, they didn't have a massive population increase that needs feeding at the same time as we wipe out areas of food production etc. As many have said here before, one of the huge problems is population growth putting a strain on our use of resources, and this is a massive issue even if we ignore climate change. When you add that we know there is warming there will be additional changes that cause problems in the world as it's "set up" now. There is plenty we could do to combat climate change which is needed anyway, but completely ignored in the focus to cut CO2.

We know the world is warming, that is a fact. If it keeps going sea levels will rise. So why not expand cities away from the sea? Instead we keep building more and more at the coast. Often where a river enters the sea. In the past this would flood, deposit sediments and top up the sinking/eroding ground. Now we manage the river so this doesn't happen, and the ground sinks fast due to the huge weight we've dumped on top of it = flooding issues. Or building on the nice flat riverbanks - which are floodplains, and so will flood. However then everything is so simplified that it becomes "flooding = man made climate change. Perhaps (often overdone in reality), but why don't we build away from the rivers? Further inland?

On the other side many deniers love to pick obscure examples of a specific location to prove it's not happening, pick highly unlikely predictions (either because it's bad science, or a worst case scenario, which is extremely unlikely to happen) to disprove models, and just write off lots of good science because it doesn't match with their view. See below for an example of misuse of model data. And as for shutting down scientists who don't agree - there is always scientists who don't agree. Sometimes it's because it's so uncertain, other times it is just because there is contrarian people out there (I'm often one myself). Other times there is a clear bias in their work. And at some point they won't get jobs. Take investing in stocks. There is a number of vocal people who keep predicting the stock market will collapse etc. They'll get it right say every 10 years. However if you actually listened to them you'd never invest in stocks - and you'd be massively poorer as a result. Therefore the same type of thing will happen to scientists who don't agree with the strong consensus at some point. They can keep talking, but eventually they'll be ignored and not get money from most groups/unis etc.

I build predictive models at work (ironically a lot have been to work out if an oil field is commercial!). In a small field often we'll find that in say 10% of the cases the field won't be commercial to produce, but in 90% it is good. On a portfolio level where you develop 10 fields then it is fine, as even though (theoretically) 1 will fail the other 9 cover it. However often people who don't understand it will pick the failed example, and say "you got it wrong!!!". How could you be so stupid/ you don't know what you're doing (well, they don't say this, but it's a kinda silly simplification)?! In reality anyone who knows the models and how they work will know that every time there was a 10% change it would not work out. And you might get really lucky, or really unlucky, and it's outside the range you predicted totally. However most of the time your predictions are approximately good enough. And that's likely to be the case with the climate change models - ignore the outliers the crazy greens pick up and shout about. But the general pic is we are likely to face issues ahead due to how our current lifestyle is organised - where we live, how much resources we need etc.

Anyway, long enough post so best to stop now!

Full respect and then some to what you have just posted. Trolls will be along shortly....

I don't think just because people have a laugh they are not worried about the planet. We are heavy users of energy in the uk, that ain't gonna change anytime soon. The treasury actively want net immigration because it slows debt interest, more people more energy, not only that we have old housing stock and a transport/ planning policy that prevents traffic flow. Where's the discussion on future ev integration? How can business plan ahead. We are always being told by leftys that we live in a neo liberal debt fuelled society, if we have to have inflation and GDP growth then energy usage has to grow, if it's stalled it cannot go below a level, what are people to do have a cold shower in the dark? What was the purpose of industrialising in that case.

[Randy Winkman]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Randy Winkman said:

A Winner Is You said:

Funny how the same people who say we should give 16 year olds the vote are angry when the opinions of a 16 year old are challenged.

I don't understand? I'm pleased she is being listened to. What's the problem?

Of course they are in the same way they listen to the people with brexit.

Well, she's obviously got the goat of some bloke the Spectator enough for him to write a whole article about her. That's pretty good for a 16 year old.

[Helicopter123]

markcoznottz said:

You are easily impressed. Virtue signalling rocks. I notice you run (ran?) a cayenne and/or a 997? Not exactly energy efficient or low emission are they. Another say as I doer.

One of the great things about these protests is that they remind us all to re focus on reducing our carbon footprint. I will certainly be thinking about this when choosing the next car. How about you?

[wc98]

funkyrobot said:

Spoken like a true self-opinionated plonker. What's it like up there on the moral high ground? Each time you post it's done from the perspective of someone better than anyone who disagrees with you.

No proper science is ever finished. New techniques and new things are learned that push the science forward. Climate change science is odd because it's so politically driven. Like everything else, the reality is that we have been on this earth for the teeniest amount of time. Some of us like to think we know what is going on, but we don't.

Good luck changing the world with European emissions targets. So long as China and the US are pumping stuff out, it makes a mockery of what we do here.

I simply cannot take anything seriously when it comes to man made climate change. On the one hand we are being told we are ruining the earth, on the next we are allowing a truly wasteful society to prosper. For instance, let's make a scheme that only gives discounts on new build houses. There are lots of perfectly adequate houses already built, but let's build more and slap on some discount. You want to buy a used car? Hell no. Let's make new cars cheaper to buy. We don't want older cars around do we, we want to build lots of new cars. Let's allow manufacturers to build items that can't be fixed. Build them so they are glued together. Who wants an old phone eh? Get a nice shiny new one that you can bin this time next year for another. Let's make it cheaper to ship something across the world than it is to build it at home. The list goes on and on.

Let's have a big climate change summit. Somewhere warm eh? Yeah, let's fly everyone in for it.

Attenborough? What an absolute hyprocrite. Spends a lot of his life travelling around the world, polluting the atmosphere with countless air miles, then lambasts others for doing the same.

Emma Thompson? Sorry luvvies, I have to go to LA for my birthday. Don't worry, I'll fly back in especially to see you all and tell everyone how they are killing the earth.

This is the common theme with man made climate change pioneers - hypocrisy.

great post, will be wasted on cb, but well worth posting anyway.

[B'stard Child]

Helicopter123 said:

markcoznottz said:

You are easily impressed. Virtue signalling rocks. I notice you run (ran?) a cayenne and/or a 997? Not exactly energy efficient or low emission are they. Another say as I doer.

One of the great things about these protests is that they remind us all to re focus on reducing our carbon footprint. I will certainly be thinking about this when choosing the next car. How about you?

The carbon impact of manufacture is way more than that of fuel over the lifetime of a vehicle - which in the UK seems to be a lot shorter than other nations - a lot of the UK seems to regard cars as disposable white goods.

[wc98]

Helicopter123 said:

One of the great things about these protests is that they remind us all to re focus on reducing our carbon footprint. I will certainly be thinking about this when choosing the next car. How about you?

carbon foot print wise the best choice for the environment will be a second hand vehicle that you maintain in good condition, but i bet you want a new car .

[Finlandia]

NRS said:

She's Swedish - it's pretty normal here in Norway/Sweden.

Re pigtails, I wouldn't say that, not at her age, I certainly cannot remember when I last saw a teenager in pigtails on the town.