Author |
Topic: Global Warming |
355 replies
|
|
|
#1 posted Oct 21st 2021, 20:07:06
|
Quote
|
Given the Temperature at each race this season so far, global warming has really hit GPRO!
|
|
|
|
#2 posted Oct 21st 2021, 20:08:55
|
Quote
|
This explains why we no longer play the penguin games during the season reset.
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Oct 21st 2021, 20:11:28
|
Quote
|
It's just someone messing with the thermostat, I'm sure it will be fixed soon.
|
|
|
|
#4 posted Oct 21st 2021, 20:14:17
|
Quote
|
Well GPRO and global warming are both fictional so I guess you're right.
|
|
|
Quote ( Paul Brosnan @ October 21st 2021,20:14:17 ) Well GPRO and global warming are both fictional so I guess you're right
Correct. Global warming is a total myth created by the Greenies & Do gooders, with absolutely no facts to support their claims. Why ??? Because it doesn't exist. Do you realize the average temperature over the past 100 years has actually dropped by 4 degrees Celsius? Governments love to talk about global warming to justify taxing the hell out of us for fuel
|
|
|
|
#6 posted Oct 21st 2021, 22:55:29
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,21:08:02 ) Correct. Global warming is a total myth created by the Greenies & Do gooders, with absolutely no facts to support their claims. Why ??? Because it doesn't exist. Do you realize the average temperature over the past 100 years has actually dropped by 4 degrees Celsius? Governments love to talk about global warming to justify taxing the hell out of us for fuel
Please be a responsible Internet user and mark your sarcasm clearly, to help with the trash separation.
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Oct 21st 2021, 23:55:31
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Jens Jäschke @ October 21st 2021,22:55:29 ) Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,21:08:02 )
Correct. Global warming is a total myth created by the Greenies & Do gooders, with absolutely no facts to support their claims. Why ??? Because it doesn't exist. Do you realize the average temperature over the past 100 years has actually dropped by 4 degrees Celsius? Governments love to talk about global warming to justify taxing the hell out of us for fuel
Please be a responsible Internet user and mark your sarcasm clearly, to help with the trash separation.
What sarcasm? What I said is 100% correct. Obviously you are silly enough to believe corrupt governments & even worse the media.
The trouble is so many governments are controlled by small minorities of left wing tree huggers, that they capitulate to that minority. Then they actually expect the population to believe their BS. Governments want you to believe everything thay say, be a conformist, act like sheep & follow.
No, not for me. Do your own research & get your facts right. Believe absolutely nothing governments or the media tell you.
|
|
|
|
#8 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 00:00:11
|
Quote
|
From the White House Initiative On Global Climate Change: https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/Initiatives/Climate/... (it's not very recent but i don't think it matters since we are talking about a span of 100 years)
Over the last century, the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1.0o F.
Yes this is from a government but you can present an official / trustworthy source if you wish to correct this source.
|
|
|
|
#9 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 00:07:45 (last edited Oct 22nd 2021, 00:08:18 by Daryl Gee)
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,23:55:31 ) Do your own research & get your facts right. by this, do you mean, google until you find the opinion that supports what you want to believe, or that everyone should do advanced climatology degrees?
|
|
|
|
#10 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 00:08:46
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,23:55:31 ) Quote ( Jens Jäschke @ October 21st 2021,22:55:29 )
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,21:08:02 )
Correct. Global warming is a total myth created by the Greenies & Do gooders, with absolutely no facts to support their claims. Why ??? Because it doesn't exist. Do you realize the average temperature over the past 100 years has actually dropped by 4 degrees Celsius? Governments love to talk about global warming to justify taxing the hell out of us for fuel
Please be a responsible Internet user and mark your sarcasm clearly, to help with the trash separation.
What sarcasm? What I said is 100% correct. Obviously you are silly enough to believe corrupt governments & even worse the media.
The trouble is so many governments are controlled by small minorities of left wing tree huggers, that they capitulate to that minority. Then they actually expect the population to believe their BS. Governments want you to believe everything thay say, be a conformist, act like sheep & follow.
No, not for me. Do your own research & get your facts right. Believe absolutely nothing governments or the media tell you.
Says that we shouldn't trust government and media.
Believes in every shitty conspiracy theory he reads on the Internet that has no scientific sources.
10/10 Male Karen
|
|
|
|
#11 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 00:20:07
|
Quote
|
Believing shitty conspiracy theories is 10/10 Male or Female facebook Karen. But so is trusting government and media.
|
|
|
|
#12 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 00:26:06
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Ignacio Belatti @ October 22nd 2021,00:20:07 ) Believing shitty conspiracy theories is 10/10 Male or Female facebook Karen. But so is trusting government and media.
Governments and media lie to people, but do you know who else lies? Stupid conspiracy theorists on the Internet who can't support their claims with trustworthy sources.
|
|
|
|
#13 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 01:08:03
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Ignacio Belatti @ October 22nd 2021,00:20:07 ) Believing shitty conspiracy theories is 10/10 Male or Female facebook Karen. But so is trusting government and media. This is why science is peer reviewed. If it's not, be wary. If it is and you disagree with it, you're probably not a peer.
|
|
|
|
#14 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 02:16:59
|
Quote
|
A "peer" is not someone whom, you disagree with.
A Peer reviewed paper: A paper/report/theorem that has been examined and studied by someone or committee etc. that is of equal standing with the author/s by virtue of knowledge or experience. Nothing about agreeing or disagreeing being part of the package.
|
|
|
|
#15 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 02:19:46
|
Quote
|
Often times: common sense is far more important than sighting "a credible source."
Likewise: ad hominem attacks are used to discredit a person, instead of providing a logical argument to support a contrarian view.
Ridicule before substance is the MO of the day, and has been actively taught by the governments since the 1960s as part of the "Rules for Radicals."
Let's start with a basic premise: Power corrupts people. Let's add in another one: corrupt people are attracted to power.
Using a little math, we can calculate that the people in power will be corrupt, as a natural consequence.
No source sighted, but this is pretty much a common sense argument.
Now let's take another one: The best place to spread propaganda is where people are looking. This would be things like Television, the internet, most commonly used search engines and social media.
Who actually believes what they watch on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX? The main stream media in the USA has had a 6% credibility rating since Reagan was running for office, yet people will hear something on those stations, and claim it to be "well known fact."
My mother had a "post card" (old school version of a meme) by the phone that read "My sources are unreliable, but there information is fascinating."
People today have been trained to equate conspiracy to myth, and the 2 terms are used almost interchangeably now.
But no one balks at the notion that there is such a thing as organized crime. People believe governments are corrupt, but not MY government, because I'm for the party that is currently in power...
News flash: Both American parties get paid by the same people. That's why the problems don't go away after election day. The same issues are the same issues we had before, and will have after the next election.
And you want to dump on the USA? Name me a country that isn't run by a central bank? If you control the purse strings: you control the country.
So maybe "we the people" here on Earth can spend less time fighting between ourselves, and work together to make this a better place instead? And turn off that TV so the lies are not training your brain.
|
|
|
|
I'll put the scientific explanation of the global warming down here for those who insist on denying the climate change caused by human activities :
''The additional greenhouse gases are primarily due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), agriculture, and land clearing. These activities increase the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
''The problem we now face is that human activities – particularly burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing – are increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. This is increasing the greenhouse effect, which is contributing to warming of the Earth.''
''...the increasing levels of other greenhouse gases lead to increases in the world's temperature. Anthropogenic activities result in increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), collectively known as greenhouse gases, causing the Earth to grow warmer and warmer. The consequences of the greenhouse effect are shown in the continuous records of global temperature and atmospheric CO2.''
It's not a political argument we should be having, it should be purely based on scientific observations. If you have your observations based on scientific method, then go on, change our minds. But if you've never even read a book on that topic, just don't.
By the way, what if I told you that climate change denial is a conservative propaganda and those who spread it believe in the supremacy of unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism?
|
|
|
|
#17 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 03:09:55
|
Quote
|
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
--Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
#18 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 05:22:59
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Aydoğan Şaşmaz @ October 22nd 2021,02:47:52 )
It's not a political argument we should be having, it should be purely based on scientific observations. The problem is: it IS political.
1) The temps today are colder than they were in 1250 AD.
2) We have been able to measure temperatures to the fraction of a thousandth of a degree for over 50 years, but even so: most of the data collected has been on analog devices marked in 2 degree increments, making the level of uncertainty in the measurements +/- 1 degree. Even with the new digital thermometers: it is still +/- 0.5 degree for precision, and sometimes +/- 5 degrees for accuracy. I've personally tested a thermometer that read 5 degrees higher than the actual temperature. The notion that the "current warming trend" can be projected out 100 years to a 2 degree warming implies AT MOST they are talking about a 0.02 degree change across an entire year's data. In other words: using "good scientific methodology", you need to treat the delta as 0, because it is less than the margin of error, and thus can't be extrapolated out to a 2 degree increase over 100 years.
3) 0% of the carbon being released by burning fossil fuels is new to the Earth. 100% of it was here before, and when the Earth was warmer: it was in the environment, but the Earth still cooled to the current temperatures.
4) The computer model used to project a catastrophic global warming makes the assumption of "a runaway greenhouse effect." That is to say: it predicts that the Earth's condition is precariously balanced, and if you move slightly off course: it will compound. Most of the Earth is covered by water, and water does a great job of mitigating temperature changes. That is why coastal areas tend to have more mild winters and summers. When heated, it not only absorbs a large amount of energy to change even 1 degree, but a portion of it also changes into gas form, even below the boiling point, through evaporation, which has orders of magnitude more energy absorption than heating 1 degree. Even ice can change to gas form via sublimation, adding even more energy absorption. The amount of water that will stay in vapor form is proportional to the local temperature, and so any increase in temperature will be self correcting, not compounding.
5) Higher water levels in the air result in higher rainfall, and plants grow faster when it is warmer and wetter, absorbing both CO2 and solar energy, and converting it to stored energy, creating another self correcting mechanism.
6) The amount of energy all the humans in the world uses in a year is not enough to raise the planet's temperature by a millionth of a degree. It isn't even enough to raise just the water on Earth by a millionth of a degree.
7) Temperature goes through cycles. Some cycles are as short as a day, others are a year long, in some places called seasons. Still others are longer, like the winding of the sun's magnetic field, resulting in a 22 year cycle that produces warmer temperatures some years, and cooler temps other years. Or the "wobble" of the Earth's axis in relation to the orbit, causing a cycle about 20k years long that affects how cold winters are, and how warm summers are. And there are many other cycles. The current temperature is like the height of the ocean in a single spot, at a single moment, and can't be considered representative of the entire ocean.
8) The Earth has only a thin crust that is solid, and under that is magma, as evidenced by volcanic eruptions. The only way that this is possible is if the surface is colder than what is under it, which means a thermal gradient. The thermal gradient is proof that the Earth has cooled, and is on a long term cooling trend. That is: the Earth has less thermal energy than it has had in the past, and any year you pick in the Earth's history is a net loss of thermal energy.
9) Most of Earth's heat comes from the sun, not the center, and the sun has been burning fuel since the point of ignition. Therefor: the sun has less fuel today than it had a year ago, or 10 years ago, etc. With less fuel comes a smaller diameter, and thus a smaller radiating surface. While this isn't enough to cause a measurable change in the energy hitting the Earth in a year, or even a century, it does mean that the long term trend is one of cooling, just like the Earth is on a long term trend of cooling.
After you've read this "book", maybe you'll be less arrogant about things you don't understand. Then again, maybe you'll be stuck in "confirmation bias" and continue to believe only the official story created for the purpose of draining trillions of dollars from the masses. What do you really think is beyond people's motivation to get another trillion? What would you yourself NOT do for even a few million?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out. Look at the Y2K scam that said all computers would fail in the year 2,000. This isn't their first scam, and wont be their last. Then again: maybe being a rocket scientist helps.
|
|
|
|
#19 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 06:14:28
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 22nd 2021,05:22:59 ) Look at the Y2K scam that said all computers would fail in the year 2,000.
Unfortunately it was not a scam, I can assume you were very young or not even born when this happened but I lived through it.
Maybe it was overly exagerated but at least in the comapny I was working we has a Y2K committee that resolved the issues before they happened. I wa in charge of automation and had to change over 200 ROMs of Industrial controllers and PLC's that would have an overflow error. Some were as minor as the controller for a conveyor, but one was the Furnace controller and that would have stopped the furnace until we solved the issue, we just did it before it happened.
Much of it wasa shoddy programming, using only 2 digist for the year (it was also based on the cost per byte in early computers so big databases had only 2 digts saving storage space).
But in many cases it was hardware related, we forced a PLC to the Y2K change and there was an overflow and an error, so no the end of the world would not occur, but most of the issues were solved before it happened (some even were patches and systems running back in 1984 with a patch adding 16 years.
Even know we have snall examples, in Mexico we have an unique ID number that includes our birthdate in a yymmdd format. A 103 year old lady treied to register for her turn for the Covid Vaccine but her ID number had 18 in the yy fields, she could not register because the system read the age as 3 years old.
Not too complicated but imagine this widespread and affecting thousands of systems big and small that were manily designed in the 80's (in one factory we were using a PLC develeoped in the 1960's and it's architecture made it faster than 1980-90's PLC's.
Most surely it would not be civilization ending but it would have affected many systems had the issues not being solved earlier.
So just beacuse you heard it was a scam, doesn't mean it was, it was simply overhjyped,
|
|
|
|
#20 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 06:20:23
|
Quote
|
Y2K was a real issue that was definitely, and in many cases probably intentionally, overhyped to the financial benefit of numerous companies, organizations and individuals worldwide. Overhyping something for undeserved profit could certainly be construed to be a scam.
|
|
|
|
#21 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 07:34:05
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Denny Holt @ October 22nd 2021,06:20:23 ) Y2K was a real issue that was definitely, and in many cases probably intentionally, overhyped to the financial benefit of numerous companies, organizations and individuals worldwide. Overhyping something for undeserved profit could certainly be construed to be a scam.
To be honest, only place where I think it was overhyped in order to scam people into unnecessary replacements and pay millions in unnecessary Y2K conuslting fees was the US.
Most of the rest of the World took precautions and took much simpler actions (Our american counterparts were surprised that we were testing our equipments and systems in house and spent less than 10% of what they spent).
It is the same as 2012 Mayan Calendar end of the World hype, people selling based on unfounded fear of something they didn't even unsertand or read it as they wanted to.
This is and old book, but it should be available as epub, Michael Chrichton made a novel/factual book named Sate of Fear in which he shows how data was skewed to prove an Inexistent Global Warming. But also that same data can be skewed to prove it is not happening.
The Earth has temp cycles and increase in temperature created more water evaporation which makes more clouds that reflect the solar radiation back and this makes the world colder, which reduces the amount of clouds which increases solar raditaon and so on.
Life on Earth is a very delicate balance, in 1883 Karakatoa erupted and exploded, the largest volcanic eruption in recorded hisotry, the ash and dust osbcured the Earth, and reduced the Eraths temp by 0.4 Celsius, enough for unexpected rain (unfortuiantely acid rain0 and the developement of el Niño currents rather than the expected La Niña currents.
1814 was called a year wothout a summer, a harsh winter and the explosion of another Volcano, Tambora and other smaller ones dropped the temp 0.7 Celsius which created famine moslty in the Northern Hemisphere. That year was called gthe year without a Summer and was the coldest between 1766 and 2000.
Weather has changed, in the 1970's you could set your watch on time just based on when it started raining in Mexico City during the summer, now that is gone.
Even though the earth is cucling between hot and cold, the frequency is higher and depending on how you measure temperatures could have gone up as an average less than 1 Celsius but we can sse that much less than that creates famines and overall changes in weather patterns.
Not only are greenhouse gases, Oxone depleting gases (O2-O3 conversion uses UV radiation and thus absorbs it) but we are also reducing our forests that help absorb greenhouse gases and keep the water balance).
I agree there are many hypes, EV's are good but the batteries they use are are not ecofreindly at all, and many countreis still depend on fossil fuels to generate that electrciity, so it is not as clean as it seems). 160 Polyesthyrene cups, properly recicled are more eco friendly than a ceramic mug based on the amount of energy and waste in manufacturing and washing them. (many cafeteria mugs don't last half a year).
|
|
|
|
#22 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 08:11:05
|
Quote
|
I don't see any scientists here so the safest bet would be to listen to the actual trained and educated people, the scientists, who are giving out papers on the subject that are being peer reviewed. Anyone not a scientist knows not what they speak of and anything not yet peer reviewed is not yet to be trusted in any capacity
|
|
|
|
|
#23 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 09:34:40
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Eduardo Sanchez Carenzo @ October 22nd 2021,06:14:28 ) Unfortunately it was not a scam, I can assume you were very young or not even born when this happened but I lived through it. You're wrong on both counts. I was at the time running my computer corporation, which I had started in '99. I was building high end home systems for gaming, and also servers for commercial customers with mirroring and striping RAID arrays for high performance applications.
Thanks for showing your complete ignorance on the topic while trying to discredit me. Let me break it down for you, so you can finally understand the scam:
The basis of it was that the year 2,000 ended in zero, and so the computers would think the year was 1900, since computers were only using the last 2 digits.
But that isn't how computers think. Computers think in binary: 1 and 0, and they use only those 2 symbols, but actually use on and off.
To get the year 1900, they don't store the entire value, and in fact: most computers were not capable of thinking the year was 1900 for the simple reason that they used an offset. If they used 1970 as a starting year, and added 30 to make the year 2,000 it wouldn't end in 00, but rather 30, and so 2000 would just be 30 instead of 29, not some magical disaster.
2001 would then be 31, and 2002 would be 32.
Of course: they were using binary, so that would be 00001111 for 15, which when you only use 4 bits, as was the issue at the time. Therefore: any computer would roll over 16 years after the base year. Unless the base year happened to be 1984, and I never saw one that was, it wouldn't roll back to 1984, or any other year, in the year 2,000.
At the peak, my corporation produced about 200 computers in a week for a special application going into a bunch of universities. None of the computers had a problem handling the year 2,000. I've worked on computers with the 8086 CPU, 8088, 80286 (more commonly known simply as a 286) 80386, 486, Pentium, Pentium II, etc. I've also owned completely different systems, such as a DEC VAX, and an Apple II, and have experience with numerous others.
I've also managed a 46,000 square food office building, that did not fail because the year 2,000 rolled around, despite having an elevator in it. Nor am I aware of any other elevators failing due to the year Y2K rolling around, and I've talked to elevator inspectors.
"But in many cases it was hardware related, " Incorrect, it was a BIOS issue, or a firmware issue, but not a hardware issue. Computers mostly don't care what the date is, unless you specifically poll them for the date for some reason, and most of them don't need that to carry on. If you're talking computers on the stock market exchange, which need to be able to time stamp transactions, then yes: the date is important. But for the vast majority of cases: nope.
"Most surely it would not be civilization ending" And here you have proven my point. The Y2K scare was exactly that: the myth that it would be civilization ending. Elevators would stop working, people would be trapped in them. Power would go out. Fuel pumps at gas stations wouldn't pump. Water distribution would no longer work. Freezers would turn off, never to turn on again. Etc. I heard it all, and I recognized at the time it was hype. And it worked: a ton of computers got sold, and I did well being in that industry at that time.
|
|
|
|
#24 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 09:41:39
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Jody Parker @ October 22nd 2021,08:11:05 ) I don't see any scientists here so the safest bet would be to listen to the actual trained and educated people, the scientists, who are giving out papers on the subject that are being peer reviewed. Anyone not a scientist knows not what they speak of and anything not yet peer reviewed is not yet to be trusted in any capacity So someone with years of experience specifically with temperature measurements is irrelevant to the discussion?
I like the way you jumped to discredit me, rather than refute any of the 9 points I made.
FYI: Common sense isn't restricted to scientists, nor is the scientific method an exclusive to an elite few. If you've had any science courses in school: you should be able to figure out some of the basics, without having to rely upon the propaganda the government feeds you.
|
|
|
|
#25 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 09:46:01
|
Quote
|
Bloody hell. The thread is about the game. This season after this race will be the hottest on record. Idk how you can write novels about this thing you cannot control. Anyway this race will be so fun, potentially in the last laps too 😈
|
|
|
|
#26 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 09:51:22
|
Quote
|
His palms are sweaty, knees weak, arms are heavy There's vomit on his sweater already, mom's spaghetti He's nervous, but on the surface he looks calm and ready
Me preparing the strategy for this race.
|
|
|
What is needed is cooler races temperatures to suit my tyres choice. And bring make Penguin game sounds fun!!!
Perhaps in hindsight, I used the wrong topis name.
|
|
|
|
#28 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 10:31:01
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Luke Frost @ October 22nd 2021,09:46:01 ) What is needed is cooler races,
Cant complain about my races, have been pretty cool. Full of action!
|
|
|
|
#29 posted Oct 22nd 2021, 11:01:40
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,21:08:02 ) Do you realize the average temperature over the past 100 years has actually dropped by 4 degrees Celsius?
It did not.
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,23:55:31 ) What I said is 100% correct.
It is not.
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,23:55:31 ) Obviously you are silly enough to believe corrupt governments & even worse the media.
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,23:55:31 ) Do your own research & get your facts right. Believe absolutely nothing governments or the media tell you.
Quote ( Andrew Wilden @ October 21st 2021,23:55:31 ) be a conformist, act like sheep & follow.
And there you have it, the full conspiracy nut bingo card.
Good on you, nullifying every future response. I mean, i could share a NASA or Berkeley source that clearly lists average global temps in 1920 around 13.7 degrees C, and approaching 15 degrees C in recent years. But hey, all those fancy institutions are tied to governments somehow, aren't they. Not trustworthy info, is it?
|
|
|
GPRO = whatever weather patterns and conundrums,, keep them coming :] I'll have a crack and go racing :D
Climate denying numpty's = I see no explanation of disappearing ice caps, no explanation of ocean acidification, no explanation of the breakdown of oceanic currents, no explanation of extreme weather events or milder winters/summers,,,, etc etc
yes certainly the climate is always changing!! but The evidence is now undeniable that humans have increased the rate at that the planet warms to a critical level. ALL of science,, that is the not corrupt or "just being paid to do a job" recognise this and the consequences on our horizon.
Quote ( Luke Frost @ October 22nd 2021,09:46:01 ) Idk how you can write novels about this thing you cannot control. Well I only see novels from people arguing against the science, claiming to be a rocket scientist.. I could reply to each of the numbered points but they're all just fuzzy facts anyway lol. point I want to make is,, with a combined right minded attitude this is not out of our control, sure we are a long way down and it will require some change/effort but we have options if we unite & fight.
Quote ( Sam Martin @ October 22nd 2021,05:22:59 ) continue to believe only the official story created for the purpose of draining trillions of dollars from the masses. :O yeah because the official story is clearly putting an and to the industries with the worst impacts... Wrong! most governments are either still ploughing our "trillions of dollars" into bad energy,, or like animal agriculture (actual worst emitting industry) they heavily subsidize this grizzly crap = cheap carcinogenic food = Cancer, obesity, diabetes & poor heart health = big pharma loving it!! yeah the corrupt power freaks are really shutting down their mates big industries to drain the wealth from the masses.....
|
|
|