Australian Politics Forum - Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #300 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:21pm

Snowstorm blankets Holy Land
Israeli President Shimon Peres builds a snowman in Jerusalem as a rare snowstorm sweeps across the Middle East. Sarah Sheffer reports.

At least eight people have died as fierce winter storms batter the Middle East. Source: AAP
THE worst storms in a decade left swathes of Israel and Jordan under a blanket of snow and parts of Lebanon blacked out on Thursday, bringing misery to a region accustomed to temperate weather.

Freezing temperatures and floods since Sunday across the region have claimed at least 11 lives and exacerbated the plight of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees huddled in tent camps in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon.

But for students in countries battered by the snow, rain and bitter winds, the storms meant they could cut classes as authorities ordered schools and universities closed in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan Israel.

With snow blanketing the war-hit Syrian capital Damascus, the education ministry on Thursday announced that mid-term exams would be postponed in the country until further notice.

In Jordan, a blizzard brought the country to a near halt, as snow blocked most of roads in Amman and other parts in the desert kingdom, police said.

Jordan's King Abdullah II ordered the army to support the government - which declared Thursday a public holiday - in opening roads and helping those stranded in the snow, the palace said.

The storm has also triggered power blackouts in Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.

In Lebanon parts of the country were plunged into darkness, leaving those who rely on electricity to heat their homes shivering.

Officials and residents blamed the outage on the storm and an open-ended strike by employees of the state-run Electricite du Liban power company over salaries and pension issues.

"There is a storm, and there is a problem in the grid. The electricity workers are on strike, and they're not letting anyone fix the problem," Lebanese Energy and Water Minister Gebran Bassil told AFP on Thursday.

The storm also highlighted the poor infrastructure in Lebanon where chronic power shortages since the end of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war have been a main source of grievance among Lebanese who must put up with daily rationing

d/telegraph.12/1/13

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #301 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm Patterns, cods. We're looking for patterns. As you can see, global warming does not mean the end of extreme cold temperatures. It just means they are less likely to occur.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #302 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:15am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET.

Where does it say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

could you point that bit out?

BTW: your link is not "right from the MET". It is a news report. Although it does say:

Global average temperatures from 2013 through 2017 will probably be about 0.43 degree Celsius (0.77 degree Fahrenheit) above the 1971 through 2000 mean, the Met Office said in its latest near-term climate forecast. That compares with the 0.54 degree rise predicted in December 2011 for 2012 through 2016.

it DOES NOT say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

as you lied.

And if you did actually go to the MET, as link from your link - you would also see:

The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/deca...

NOT:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

as you lied.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures...

The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/deca...

This is what the MET said. Not:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

You lied.

its a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts.

Yes. It is a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts. The fact is that that you claimed the MET said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

When asked to show this "announcement" - you could not. You lied.

The MET did not say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

What the MET did say was:
Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average

How exactly does this "critical reasoning" of yours lead you to read of a forecast of above average temperatures for each of the next 5 years, and come to the conclusion that "that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years"?!?!?

Do you know what the word "average" actually means? If the PM announced that we expect to receive above average numbers of boat people for each of the next 5 years - do you think that that would lead all of the Andrew Bolt fans to say - " Oh well done PM! THere will be no increase in the number of boat people for the next 5 years! Is this how your "critical reasoning" works

Or by "critical reasoning" - do you just mean "tell lies"?

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that glaciers are not receding? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that an undersea volcano was melting the arctic ice cap? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that the Doran 2009 survey was sent to 10,000 scientists but only 79 responded - when in fact 3146 responded? Well, that was just an outright lie wasn't it.

And now this "critical reasoning" leads you to say that the MET announced "that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years" - when of course - they said no such thing, the exact opposite in fact. They predicted 5 years of continuing above average temperatures.

THis "critical reasoning" of yours really doesn't work very well, does it. Why don't you just concentrate on trying to tell the truth. That would be a nice change.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #303 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Your post lacks all sense, goldie. It's a massive ad hominem with a little bit of jargon thrown in to create a veneer of sophistication.

Have another go, sunshine.

How about you start with a statement in my post you disagree with. Then tell me why it is wrong. And how about rather than trying to obfuscate, you have a go at laying down a real argument that is clear, concise and logical.

I'll help you out. Explain to me why, in your opinion, this statement does not reflect the latest prediction from the Met Office.

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

simple. Because it is nothing more than a couple sentences written by you seeking to explain an entire MET press release. No analysis. Nothing but making a claim with no reference to data or analysis.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #304 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:07pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:15am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-09/u-k-met-office-lowers-warming-forecast-for-next-5-years.html

since you lack the capacity to read here it is again right from the MET.

Where does it say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

could you point that bit out?

BTW: your link is not "right from the MET". It is a news report. Although it does say:

Global average temperatures from 2013 through 2017 will probably be about 0.43 degree Celsius (0.77 degree Fahrenheit) above the 1971 through 2000 mean, the Met Office said in its latest near-term climate forecast. That compares with the 0.54 degree rise predicted in December 2011 for 2012 through 2016.

it DOES NOT say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

as you lied.

And if you did actually go to the MET, as link from your link - you would also see:

The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/deca...

NOT:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

as you lied.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

global warming??? not according to the UK MET's figures...

The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/deca...

This is what the MET said. Not:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

You lied.

its a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts.

Yes. It is a pretty simple outcome if you read the facts. The fact is that that you claimed the MET said:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

When asked to show this "announcement" - you could not. You lied.

The MET did not say:
that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years and that the last 16 have shown no increase."

What the MET did say was:
Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average

How exactly does this "critical reasoning" of yours lead you to read of a forecast of above average temperatures for each of the next 5 years, and come to the conclusion that "that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years"?!?!?

Do you know what the word "average" actually means? If the PM announced that we expect to receive above average numbers of boat people for each of the next 5 years - do you think that that would lead all of the Andrew Bolt fans to say - " Oh well done PM! THere will be no increase in the number of boat people for the next 5 years! Is this how your "critical reasoning" works

Or by "critical reasoning" - do you just mean "tell lies"?

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that glaciers are not receding? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that an undersea volcano was melting the arctic ice cap? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that the MWP was 4 degrees warmer globally than today? Or was that just a lie. You have never shown us any evidence to support that statement, have you.

Was it "critical reasoning that lead you to say that the Doran 2009 survey was sent to 10,000 scientists but only 79 responded - when in fact 3146 responded? Well, that was just an outright lie wasn't it.

And now this "critical reasoning" leads you to say that the MET announced "that they expect no more warming for the next 4-5 years" - when of course - they said no such thing, the exact opposite in fact. They predicted 5 years of continuing above average temperatures.

THis "critical reasoning" of yours really doesn't work very well, does it. Why don't you just concentrate on trying to tell the truth. That would be a nice change.

now see the highlighted bit dumb-bunny. Now tell me in terms relative to current global temperatures what this actually means. CLUE: you wont be able to work it out.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #305 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Your post lacks all sense, goldie. It's a massive ad hominem with a little bit of jargon thrown in to create a veneer of sophistication.

Have another go, sunshine.

How about you start with a statement in my post you disagree with. Then tell me why it is wrong. And how about rather than trying to obfuscate, you have a go at laying down a real argument that is clear, concise and logical.

I'll help you out. Explain to me why, in your opinion, this statement does not reflect the latest prediction from the Met Office.

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

simple. Because it is nothing more than a couple sentences written by you seeking to explain an entire MET press release. No analysis. Nothing but making a claim with no reference to data or analysis.

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #306 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:15pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Patterns, cods. We're looking for patterns.

As you can see, global warming does not mean the end of extreme cold temperatures. It just means they are less likely to occur.

I just thought this might give you some peace of mind...knowing that snow was falling in the desert.....I thought you would be happy and therefor able to sleep at night...

believe me I worry about you...

you seem determined for the world to END.in a ball of fire..you want all these..PATTERNS to be right..YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT.

thats sick,

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #307 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:20pm

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Patterns, cods. We're looking for patterns.

As you can see, global warming does not mean the end of extreme cold temperatures. It just means they are less likely to occur.

I just thought this might give you some peace of mind...knowing that snow was falling in the desert.....I thought you would be happy and therefor able to sleep at night...

believe me I worry about you...

you seem determined for the world to END.in a ball of fire..you want all these..PATTERNS to be right..YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT.

thats sick,

I'm virtually certain I'm right, cods. And I'm determined to do what I can to minimise the risk to our children. Some of us can face the truth others put their collective head in the sand. Facing the truth and dealing with the truth is not sick, it's rational.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #308 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Your post lacks all sense, goldie. It's a massive ad hominem with a little bit of jargon thrown in to create a veneer of sophistication.

Have another go, sunshine.

How about you start with a statement in my post you disagree with. Then tell me why it is wrong. And how about rather than trying to obfuscate, you have a go at laying down a real argument that is clear, concise and logical.

I'll help you out. Explain to me why, in your opinion, this statement does not reflect the latest prediction from the Met Office.

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

simple. Because it is nothing more than a couple sentences written by you seeking to explain an entire MET press release. No analysis. Nothing but making a claim with no reference to data or analysis.

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

your statement is inadequate. it says nothing but opinion substantiated by nothing whatsoever. it makes a claim without reference, without context or without support.

I posted a detailed view on their press release and you responded with nothing more substantial than 'me too'. How about actually addressing the detail of my argument. Do you realise that you never actually address a persons argument in detail? Instead all you say is. 'no, you are wrong and here is the same old graph for the 99th time'.

You give the appearance of being intelligent and capable of debate and argument. So why arent you doing it? Ive raised multiple questions and you ahve never yet addressed a single one and still refuse to.

When I give you a list of emminent scientist who say ACC is crap what do you do????? demand their peer-reviewed papers, permission from their mums and a criminal report. A perons of your purported intelligence would engage a debate as to why, if the science is settled and the question is beyond dispute, that so many dispute it and with reasonable cause.

now when you are actually willing to engage some of those discussion than maybe a deabte mught be worthwhile. But to date, you do an awful lot of flag-waving and precious little (none actually) debate on the harder questions.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #309 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:26pm

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:

cods wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 3:24pm:

Patterns, cods. We're looking for patterns.

As you can see, global warming does not mean the end of extreme cold temperatures. It just means they are less likely to occur.

I just thought this might give you some peace of mind...knowing that snow was falling in the desert.....I thought you would be happy and therefor able to sleep at night...

believe me I worry about you...

you seem determined for the world to END.in a ball of fire..you want all these..PATTERNS to be right..YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT.

thats sick,

I'm virtually certain I'm right, cods. And I'm determined to do what I can to minimise the risk to our children. Some of us can face the truth others put their collective head in the sand. Facing the truth and dealing with the truth is not sick, it's rational.

there is a particularly insiduous arrogance that declares that you are right beyond question or debate while so many around say the opposite. the only two options are that you are THAT good OR that you are THAT STUPID.

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #310 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:26pm Nothing much changes for GM aka Longweekend aka Longy aka Rip Van Winkle, he has always been a brick short, BUT nevertheless he is still nearly as intelligent as 2 London Bricks!
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings. Reply #311 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:30pm As is evident from my posts, I'm certainly not beyond debating the issue. Now all you have to do is come up with a more persuasive argument, goldie.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #312 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:31pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Your post lacks all sense, goldie. It's a massive ad hominem with a little bit of jargon thrown in to create a veneer of sophistication.

Have another go, sunshine.

How about you start with a statement in my post you disagree with. Then tell me why it is wrong. And how about rather than trying to obfuscate, you have a go at laying down a real argument that is clear, concise and logical.

I'll help you out. Explain to me why, in your opinion, this statement does not reflect the latest prediction from the Met Office.

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

simple. Because it is nothing more than a couple sentences written by you seeking to explain an entire MET press release. No analysis. Nothing but making a claim with no reference to data or analysis.

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

your statement is inadequate. it says nothing but opinion substantiated by nothing whatsoever. it makes a claim without reference, without context or without support.

I posted a detailed view on their press release and you responded with nothing more substantial than 'me too'. How about actually addressing the detail of my argument. Do you realise that you never actually address a persons argument in detail? Instead all you say is. 'no, you are wrong and here is the same old graph for the 99th time'.

You give the appearance of being intelligent and capable of debate and argument. So why arent you doing it? Ive raised multiple questions and you ahve never yet addressed a single one and still refuse to.

When I give you a list of emminent scientist who say ACC is crap what do you do????? demand their peer-reviewed papers, permission from their mums and a criminal report. A perons of your purported intelligence would engage a debate as to why, if the science is settled and the question is beyond dispute, that so many dispute it and with reasonable cause.

now when you are actually willing to engage some of those discussion than maybe a deabte mught be worthwhile. But to date, you do an awful lot of flag-waving and precious little (none actually) debate on the harder questions.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #313 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:34pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

Your post lacks all sense, goldie. It's a massive ad hominem with a little bit of jargon thrown in to create a veneer of sophistication.

Have another go, sunshine.

How about you start with a statement in my post you disagree with. Then tell me why it is wrong. And how about rather than trying to obfuscate, you have a go at laying down a real argument that is clear, concise and logical.

I'll help you out. Explain to me why, in your opinion, this statement does not reflect the latest prediction from the Met Office.

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

simple. Because it is nothing more than a couple sentences written by you seeking to explain an entire MET press release. No analysis. Nothing but making a claim with no reference to data or analysis.

Pathetic, goldie.

It seems there is nothing you can identify that makes my statement false.

your statement is inadequate. it says nothing but opinion substantiated by nothing whatsoever. it makes a claim without reference, without context or without support.

I posted a detailed view on their press release and you responded with nothing more substantial than 'me too'. How about actually addressing the detail of my argument. Do you realise that you never actually address a persons argument in detail? Instead all you say is. 'no, you are wrong and here is the same old graph for the 99th time'.

You give the appearance of being intelligent and capable of debate and argument. So why arent you doing it? Ive raised multiple questions and you ahve never yet addressed a single one and still refuse to.

When I give you a list of emminent scientist who say ACC is crap what do you do????? demand their peer-reviewed papers, permission from their mums and a criminal report. A perons of your purported intelligence would engage a debate as to why, if the science is settled and the question is beyond dispute, that so many dispute it and with reasonable cause.

now when you are actually willing to engage some of those discussion than maybe a deabte mught be worthwhile. But to date, you do an awful lot of flag-waving and precious little (none actually) debate on the harder questions.

Again, goldie, pathetic. How about you tell me exactly why my statement is false. Four paragraphs of insults is not an argument.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Deniers nailed misrepresenting IPCC findings.
Reply #314 - Jan 12^th, 2013 at 4:36pm

Quote:

According to the Met the next 5 years may be cooler than the hottest decade on record (2000-2009), but more likely they will be slightly hotter. There is as much chance of temperatures accelerating above the current trend as there is of them falling by 0.11.

Here it is again, goldie. Stop whinging and start debating.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged