You said something about a 60 year period being quoted in one of the links I gave, shall I take your silence to mean you just made that up?
Lastly the ELI5 section. One does not, like Monckton just wake up one day and say “today Im a climate scientist”, this may come as a shock to you, but it’s one of the most technically difficult disciplines there is.
Now if he were a pianist lets say, you could easily hear the difference (even you may not know the first thing about playing a piano) between someone who had spent many years studying and spent hours a day refining his art, compared to some idiot who woke up one day and said to everyone “today I will be a maestro”. Everyone would laugh, just as anyone who can “listen” to what he actually says about climate is laughing at him.
There are some climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC and mainstream scientific opinion, I would suggest you listen to what they are saying and try and understand the points they make rather than go with a complete joke like Monckton. Or does the need to cling on to the conclusions he makes seem so attractive to your political view you are willing to throw away any semblance of rational thought in the process?
Thanks for all the citations. Again, can you tell me in YOUR words, what YOU think is wrong with the satellite data that Monckton is citing? I mean this is all so ridiculously obvious/simple. So, tell us!
It’s not simple at all. I’m going to go with the piano analogy a bit farther, you could have a finely tuned grand piano, and with someone who only knows how to play the chopsticks, you are not going to hear anything wonderful. Don’t blame the piano because the person doesn’t know how to use it, conversely a really talented musician can work with a out of tune , some keys missing piece of shit and still make it sound not half bad. That’s satellite data, a piece of shit out of tune with a lot keys missing instrument.
I’m doing you a favour, believe it or not. We can reach the same conclusion regarding the ability to accurately model the future, but we do so by different logic. Mine rests with the fact anything climate related is incredibly complex, so no I can’t critique Moncktons bullshit. I don’t speak the language, nor does he frankly. Nor do you. Even scientists who have studied and have published many papers don’t agree sciencemag.org/content/309/5 … 8.abstract
A satellite doesn’t have some global thermometer measuring the global mean temperature, although if it did, Taipei would not be a bad place to insert it. They would need to be over the same points every day at the same time to make any sort of meaningful average, which they are not, so allowances need to be made, then they need to be at the same height and not in decay, which they are, and allowances need to be made for that too.
Maybe if three or four or even more institutions who have been doing this all their lives and understand the music well enough to take this piece of shit data and come up with something that they all agree on is roughly what is happening, I can buy that. But Christopher Monckton who has never studied the subject, who has had no peer review work, ever, wants everyone to believe he can play this instrument better than anyone else. Fred, this is the kind of stuff you tell your friends and they go away and talk behind your back and say "Fred's a really decent guy, but when he starts on with this absolute bullshit about global warming I want to disown him".
By even suggesting Monckton have a seat at the table, you downplay just how incredibly difficult the science is, and if you were interested in the denial side of the equation, that is your strongest card, Monckton is an own goal.
So you DON’T have any data to challenge this. I thought not.
And, this really is funny:
No, I am not downplaying anything of the kind. In fact, I am very much agreeing with you 100% on this. That is why I remain EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL that you and your latest band of do-gooders can KNOW anything of the kind with regard to what CO2 is doing to the climate right now MUCH LESS in 100 years. Hoisted by your own petard, me thinks. Oh yes, an embarrassing spectacle, but not as bad as the one which is currently emerging out of Paris, n’est-ce pas?
[quote]The number of square brackets, indicating significant disagreement, had been reduced to around 50, a major improvement on Saturday when they ran to more than 900.
Some campaigners were not happy with Thursday’s draft, saying it denied “climate justice”.
“Rich countries have a responsibility to ensure a fair global deal for everyone, not just themselves, and as we move into these final hours of negotiations poorer countries must not settle for anything less,” said Adriano Campolina, from ActionAid.[/quote]
Like hogs at a trough, “well-meaning” climate “activists” just the latest reincarnation of Third World redistributionist efforts. The real key to economic development and well-being: capitalism, deregulation and property rights (rule of law). Those that have learned this lesson don’t need the help of these “activists” and others. Those who have not learned that lesson have redoubled their efforts to demand “justice.” And what exactly will that “justice” involve? Hundreds of billions in aid to developing nations. Where will that money go? No doubt to the NGOs and to the corrupt, inefficient, ineffective government agencies who have failed in their efforts to provide education, health care, transportation, jobs, environmental protection, fill in the blank. More power to the people yelling more power to the people!!! And WHEN oh WHEN are we going to get our first climate justice drum circle. Sign me disappointed.
Even if we went on the assumption that climate change is complete bogus and humans are doing nothing to cause it, it would still be in the best interest of the country to drive to be completely free of fossil fuels. From a health stand point, pollution itself costs many lives and billions of medical dollars a year. From a technology standpoint the benefits of branching off and finding new innovative ways to fuel the world would have benefits several times the investment not only in direct industries but all kinds of peripheral advancements as well. There’s geopolitical reasons for not having an economy reliant on fossil fuels. Lastly, the amount of new jobs it would create by itself would make it worth it for the US to be the leader here.
So regardless of whether you believe in the broad scientific consensus that humans are definitely one of the causes or whether you think it’s all a hoax, the end result is the same. The US should lead the world in a push to completely replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The next 10 or 20 years, perhaps even longer is going to be pretty rough for the global economy. A massive push in technology here just might allow the US to escape what’s coming.
Depends on the source. Depends on the study. China? Definitely. Some medium-sized city in the Midwest? Unlikely.
Prove it. And prove that government-led investment is the best, most productive, cheapest way to go. I don’t see that.
Yes, but your little friends are ALSO protesting fracking EVEN THOUGH this is the one new development that has vastly reduced US CO2 emissions. I hear nuclear is now “clean.”
[quote]Lastly, the amount of new jobs it would create by itself would make it worth it for the US to be the leader here.
[/quote]
So you all say… these easily mouthed talking points are clearly the result of excessive marketing/branding. Prove it. And advise how much each job will cost the U.S. taxpayer. Let’s talk Solyndra.
No, regardless of what you say, the cost to productive society may not be worth the effort. I certainly can point to the mushrooming in “do gooder” organizations. How many people are at this climate conference? 40,000? what will all the hangers on? conference tourists? Think of all of them NOT flying and what that would do for the planet!
Nobody said any cost, obviously it would be in everyones interest to be efficient with spending, but cost isn’t a simple as what you pull from your pocket. Cost also includes opportunity cost, forgone benefits of not spending. There are ways to make investments pay off you know
Lock yourself in a garage with your car running, no way to get out of the garage and no way to get in your car to turn it off. Are you safe? Now lock yourself in your garage with your Tesla running, no way to get out, no way to turn off the car. How do you feel now?
Obviously it would improve health everywhere, the only question is to what varying degrees in different regions. But just because people in the midwest aren’t yet wearing masks doesn’t mean it wouldn’t also be a health benefit to have clean energy.
Who said anything about government led? Of course a push to alternative energy would come from the private business sector. The governments role would be subsidizing and providing grants etc… Of course capitalism would be the real driver behind it.
Again, nobody said anything about government. Secondly, of course it would create jobs, that’s what new industries do. How many historical examples in how many countries around the world do you need? Are you really not aware of any precedent for this?
My only point was, it’s no longer a science question in my mind, it’s an economic one. Rarely are there such elegant opportunities to solve a problem. Usually we solve problems by throwing larger problems at it. In this case, the US can get back to the organic growth that put it atop the world economies in the first place by making a push to alternative energies. Get back to leading in technology, high end manufacturing, and creating new industries.
Now of course there are ways to deny the economic argument as well, but then again there are people out there who actually think that the benefit of going to the moon was to walk on the moon. They missed the entire point of it. There were people back then too that didn’t want to spend the money. :loco:
[quote]
Nobody said any cost, obviously it would be in everyones interest to be efficient with spending, but cost isn’t a simple as what you pull from your pocket. Cost also includes opportunity cost, forgone benefits of not spending. There are ways to make investments pay off you know [/quote]
And I’ll just bet that you know all about making investments paying off. But in the meantime, feel free to advise where government-led investment has been successful and how those examples are relevant to the climate change “investment.” I am just waiting to see how “raising awareness” and “sending 40,000 delegates to Paris” will pay off but then again, I am not the investment expert, you are, right?
Gosh! I love simple analogies! So, now Mother Earth is like a locked garage. Look out Al Gore, we got a new Oscar Winner in the wings…
Well, since you know about investments and all that, there is such a thing as declining rates of return, yes? Can you explain to us what those would mean and how this would be applicable to the toxic CO2 that is killing lives everywhere. Oh, it isn’t? OH! I see, it is that the rising temperatures are killing people due to “rising seas” and such. Oh? But cold weather actually kills more than hot weather? Er, um, what?
OF COURSE! It should be the private sector… so why are we having a climate conference in Paris? Seems to me that the business contingent other than the Star CEOs who are like Bono eager to “give back” to the community. Sorry, Community.
Well, well, well, a lot of people in Paris are going to be very VERY surprised that the government is NOT involved, but I see what you mean. Well meaning (and they always are, aren’t they?) government folks will “direct” business to the appropriate ends but government is NOT involved.
10,000 johns spending $100/blow job are going to create a lot of “jobs,” too. So?
Give me three examples. You brought it up. You pony up.
Wow! Not one actionable item in that whole construct. What are you writing for candidates now?
Yes, all of this is akin to going to the moon. Why Solyndra is about going to the moon. Leaving no child behind is about getting to the moon. Raising the minimum wage to $15/hour is about getting to the moon. Sending 40,000 delegates to Paris is about getting to the moon. I am absolutely over the moon about all of this moon talk… moon beam…
Final prediction: Solve the global warming “problem,” and something else MUST come up to be addressed URGENTLY and this will require large staffs at NGOs AND redistribution of wealth from the productive to those who “need it.” Social justice? now environmental justice or better yet climate justice? Wonderful with “reparations?” Why, where have I seen all of this before? It’s like deja vu all over again…
In money management, yes. In climate change and renewable energies, no. Why would you think I could speak on behalf of the renewable energy sector? I do not, have not, will never own a renewable energy company so it would seem to me I’m the wrong person to be asking. You might want to consult an actual expert. By the way, I didn’t actually put on or take part in the Paris talks so you might want to direct your anger towards someone who has at least something to do with that.
I guarantee you that if you asked someone in clean energy whether investments in such would pay off in the long run, you would not only get a resounding YES, but they’d also be able to be far more specific than I about the right way or more efficient way to go about it.
The question is, are you actually interested in getting some answers or are you just being a keyboard warrior on an anonymous chat forum? If you truly want answers, talk to industry experts. They would be more than willing to explain to you the economics of why expanding the industry would be a net positive for the US, would improve the health of everybody, would increase jobs, and lead technology in new and exciting directions.
That’s all for now, I’ve enjoyed our little exchange. But a LITTLE bit of Fred Smith is ALWAYS better than a lot. I’ll quit here Constanza style, Good day sir
So NOT putting your money (you do have some, don’t you?) where your mouth is? Ah… such a shock! not anger… contempt… CONTEMPT…
Well, I kinda sorta just did and you kinda sorta did not provide any examples despite asking me “how many I wanted.” Right?
Like I said, you asked if I wanted to see something, I said yes, and? What have you offered? nothing…
I suppose you have… in your investment guise? I thought that this information was readily available to all? known to everyone? but now we have to talk to experts? Only they “know?”
Oh surely, you, as an economic, financial and investment expert can explain those views to me/us? No?
Sorry, did I miss anything of substance in your reply? No? Oh!
Well, here’s some interesting information on the “well meaning” efforts of those concerned with the planet leading to some, er, rather unfortunate results, unless, of course, you disagree… This is ONE of MANY examples that I can readily and easily offer.
[quote]In 2000, over 90% of the U.S. corn crop went to feed people and livestock, many in undeveloped countries, with less than 5% used to produce ethanol. In 2013, however, 40% went to produce ethanol, 45% was used to feed livestock, and only 15% was used for food and beverage (AgMRC).
The United States will use over 130 billion gallons of gasoline this year, and over 50 billion gallons of diesel. On average, one bushel of corn can be used to produce just under three gallons of ethanol. If all of the present production of corn in the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would only displace 25% of that 130 billion.
But it would completely disrupt food supplies, livestock feed, and many poor economies in the Western Hemisphere because the U.S. produces 40% of the world’s corn. Seventy percent of all corn imports worldwide come from the U.S. Simply implementing mandatory vehicle fuel efficiencies of 40 mpg would accomplish much more, much faster, with no collateral damage.
In 2014, the U.S. will use almost 5 billion bushels of corn to produce over 13 billion gallons of ethanol fuel. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon gas tank with ethanol can feed one person for a year, so the amount of corn used to make that 13 billion gallons of ethanol will not feed the almost 500 million people it was feeding in 2000. This is the entire population of the Western Hemisphere outside of the United States.
In 2007, the global price of corn doubled as a result of an explosion in ethanol production in the U.S. Because corn is the most common animal feed and has many other uses in the food industry, the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, corn-based sweeteners and cereals increased as well. World grain reserves dwindled to less than two months, the lowest level in over 30 years.
Additional unintended effects from the increase in ethanol production include the dramatic rise in land rents, the increase in natural gas and chemicals used for fertilizers, over-pumping of aquifers like the Ogallala that serve many mid-western states, clear-cutting forests to plant fuel crops, and the revival of destructive practices such as edge tillage. Edge tillage is planting right up to the edge of the field thereby removing protective bordering lands and increasing soil erosion, chemical runoff and other problems. It took us 40 years to end edge tillage in this country, and overnight ethanol brought it back with a vengeance.
Most fuel crops, such as sugar cane, have problems similar to corn. Because Brazil relied heavily on imported oil for transportation, but can attain high yields from crops in their tropical climate, the government developed the largest fuel ethanol program in the world in the 1990s based on sugar cane and soybeans.
Unfortunately, Brazil is clear-cutting almost a million acres of tropical forest per year to produce biofuel from these crops, and shipping much of the fuel all the way to Europe. The net effect is about 50% more carbon emitted by using these biofuels than using petroleum fuels (Eric Holt-Giménez, The Politics of Food). These unintended effects are why energy policy and development must proceed holistically, considering all effects on global environments and economies.
So why have we pushed corn ethanol so heavily here in the U.S.? Primarily because it was the only crop that had the existing infrastructure to easily modify for this purpose, especially when initially incentivized with tax credits, subsidies and import tariffs. Production, transportation and fermentation could be adapted quickly by the corn industry, unlike any other crop.
We should remember that humans originally switched from biomass to fossil fuels because biomass was so inefficient, and took so much energy and space to produce. So far technology has not reversed these problems sufficiently to make widespread use beneficial.
What else can we use to produce biofuel?
Two leading strategies involve ethanol production from the degradation of cellulosics, and biodiesel production from algae.
The common alcohol, ethanol, has been harnessed by humans for millennia, made through the microbial conversion of biomass materials, typically sugars, through fermentation. The process starts with a solution of fermentable sugars, fermented to ethanol by microbes, and then the ethanol is separated and purified by distillation.
Fermentation involves microorganisms, typically yeasts, that evolved billions of years ago before Earth’s atmosphere contained oxygen, to use sugars for food and in the process produced ethanol, CO2 and other byproducts:
Microorganisms typically use 6-carbon sugars and their precursors, glucose and sucrose. But because sugars and starches are foods, a better alternative for ethanol production should be from non-food cellulosic materials, such as paper, cardboard, wood, and other fibrous plant material. Switchgrass and napier grass have been studied extensively as the best alternatives.
Cellulosics are abundant and much of the supply is considered waste. Cellulosics are comprised of lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. Lignin provides structural support for the plant and encloses the cellulose and hemicellulose molecules, making it more difficult to process for fuel.
Thus, efficiently making ethanol out of cellulosics requires a different approach than for corn. They can either be reacted with acid (sulfuric is most common), degraded using enzymes produced from microbes, or heated to a gas and reacted with chemical catalysts (thermo-chemical). Each has its variations, some can be combined, and all are attempting to be commercialized. Still, these processes are stuck at about twice the price per gallon produced compared to corn. Recently, special microorganisms have been genetically engineered to ferment these materials into ethanol with relatively high efficiency.
It’s no wonder we just went with corn!
Another less discussed biofuel strategy is biodiesel replacing petroleum diesel. Biodiesel is made by combining almost any oil or fat with an alcohol such as ethanol or methanol.
Biodiesel can be run in any diesel engine without modification and produces less toxic emissions and particulates than petroleum diesel. It causes less wear and tear on engines, and increases lubricity and engine efficiency, and releases about 60% less CO2 emissions than petroleum diesel.
Rudolf Diesel originally developed the diesel engine to run on diesel from food oils such as peanut and soybean, but animal fats and any other natural oil can be used. However, almost a hundred years ago, the need for fuel outstripped the supply of natural oils and petroleum become the only abundant source available.
The most common natural oils used are rapeseed and canola oil, but a particularly promising candidate is oil from algae. Algae production uses non-productive land and brine water and produces over 20 times the oil production of any food crop. An acre of algae can produce almost 5,000 gallons of biodiesel. It does not compete with food crops for arable land or potable water and could produce over 60 billion gallons/yr that would replace all petroleum-based diesel in the U.S.
However, all algae production facilities presently sell their crops to the food and cosmetic industry at a much greater profit than they would get from the fuel industry.
I guess for biofuels, as for any other source, there’s just no such thing as a free lunch.[/quote]
How much does it cost to buy an anti-climate change report these days? Surprisingly easy and affordable!
[quote]One of the academics exposed, William Happer of Princeton, is actually testifying at Ted Cruz’s Senate hearing on protecting climate denial this afternoon.The details from the sting are a fascinating look into how academic credibility can be bought.
In Happer’s case, investigators said they were part of a “Middle East oil and gas company” and asked to ensure that their commissioning of the report could not be traced. Happer reached out to a friendly Exxon lobbyist who suggested channeling it through Donors Trust, the shady donor anonymity organization that has been called the “dark-money ATM” of North American conservatives.
They followed up with Donors Trust, asking if they accepted money from a Middle Eastern oil and gas company. The Trust basically said no problem, as long as the cash came from an American bank account. “We can take it from a foreign body, just we have to be extra cautious with that.”
The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.”
…The case of Frank Clemente of Penn State University has similarly damning details. Investigators asked Clemente, a sociologist, if he could publish a paper to “counter damaging research linking coal to premature deaths (in particular the WHO’s figure that 3.7 million people die per year from fossil fuel pollution).”
Clemente said that he could be quoted in support of the report using his university job title, and that it would cost $15,000 for the 8-10-page paper. Asked for assurance that the oil and gas funding would be kept secret, Clemente referenced past articles and even testimony in front of state legislatures and said, “In none of these cases is the sponsor identified. All my work is publised as an independent scholar.”
“There is no requirement to declare source funding in the U.S.,” he explained.
[/quote]
fred, I hope you’re getting at least a bag of binlang and a jug of mijiou for your efforts.
[quote]fred, I hope you’re getting at least a bag of binlang and a jug of mijiou for your efforts.
[/quote]
Which is probably more than any of those “hoping” for “change” will get out of the latest SUCCESS!!! in ACHIEVING!!! a CLIMATE DEAL!!! to SAVE OUR PLANET!!!
I hope everyone is as THRILLED as I am to see this MOMENTOUS DEAL!!!
Here’s hoping the can of “commitments” to deliver on the $100 billion to the “world’s poorest nations” gets kicked down the road another 6 years… and then another 6 years… I mean think about… this money can really only come from the US and EU… the former has a Congress that will never approve; the latter has no capacity/capability/will to finance this following Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy … with Ukraine on one side and the massive influx and costs of dealing with unlimited immigration from the world’s poorest nations.
I thought that this was interesting… and I don’t dispute the 3.7 million who die from fossil fuel pollution, but I am not sure that “linking coal” is the right focus… read on… THIS is the WHO study that is being referenced… and then ponder what the REAL cause of these deaths is… LACK of development not TOO MUCH.
[quote]Household air pollution and health
Fact sheet N°292
Updated March 2014
Key facts
Around 3 billion people cook and heat their homes using open fires and simple stoves burning biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.
Over 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels.
More than 50% of premature deaths among children under 5 are due to pneumonia caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.
3.8 million premature deaths annually from noncommunicable diseases including stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are attributed to exposure to household air pollution.
Indoor air pollution and household energy: the forgotten 3 billion
Around 3 billion people still cook and heat their homes using solid fuels (i.e. wood, crop wastes, charcoal, coal and dung) in open fires and leaky stoves. Most are poor, and live in low- and middle-income countries.
Such inefficient cooking fuels and technologies produce high levels of household air pollution with a range of health-damaging pollutants, including small soot particles that penetrate deep into the lungs. In poorly ventilated dwellings, indoor smoke can be 100 times higher than acceptable levels for small particles. Exposure is particularly high among women and young children, who spend the most time near the domestic hearth.
Impacts on health
4.3 million people a year die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution caused by the inefficient use of solid fuels (2012 data). Among these deaths:
12% are due to pneumonia
34% from stroke
26% from ischaemic heart disease
22% from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and
6% from lung cancer.[/quote]
So, in my view, if you claim to want to save lives then getting these families hooked up to electricity and natural gas (more development) is better than leaving them in their pre-industrial state. And I note… these deaths were occurring throughout history for the same reason. It is modern development that has ensured that 4 billion people do NOT have to suffer from these conditions. It is time to lift those other 3 billion up to the same level and that means more coal-powered electric plants so that there will be less burning of coal in their houses.
I do hope that you were not attempting to suggest that this whole debate is related to man-made climate change… oh you were… ah… missed the whole point of this debate, didn’t you?
[quote]Six years after the chaotic ending of the Copenhagen climate summit, the agreement now known as the Paris Agreement for the first time commits rich countries, rising economies and some of the poorest countries to work together to curb emissions.
Rich countries agreed to raise $100bn (£66bn) a year by 2020 to help poor countries transform their economies. The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements – including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements – are not.
The deal was also hailed for delivering a clear message to business leaders. The International Investors Group on Climate Change, a network managing €13tn of assets, said the decision would help trigger a shift away from fossil fuels and encourage greater investments in renewable energy.[/quote]
HURRAY!!! The planet will be SAVED!!! Business has gotten a “clear message!!!” The OVERALL AGREEMENT is legally binding!!! too bad the pledges on emissions and finance elements are not… but those are not the MAIN POINTS!!! The main point is to send a message!!! not to reduce CO2 emissions or fund the efforts of poor countries to do so!!! I am sure that all will “do their best” to “live up to” their commitments!!! SURELY THEY WILL!!! These are governments and they have PROMISED TO DO SO!!! HURRAY!!! I have to go now… my polar bear friends and I are going to go sealing together to celebrate!!!
It’s a little surprising that as an adult Fred you still need a “study” to tell you whether inhaling poisonous gases and toxic fumes is bad for our health. Really? You really need a study to determine this?
I recall equally intelligent people in the past also wanted studies to see whether inhaling carcinogenic cigarettes was actually bad for our health or not. I have no doubt what so ever you were one of them.
Oh? Is CO2 dangerous to one’s health? Should one avoid inhaling it?
Really?
Got one that shows inhaling CO2 is dangerous?
And you seem to be wantonly confusing two studies or the claims regarding those studies. Your little friend seemed to be suggesting that coal-fired power plants were causing 3.7 million deaths while making fun of Senator Cruz, yet the study, directly from the WHO web site shows that it is not coal-fired power plants and thus “climate change” that is causing these health issues but coal, dung and wood-fired stoves in enclosed spaces and thus the very variable that development REMOVES. Oh, but… er, yeah… um YEAH!
No, this is only the reports that you read. They have been called coffin nails or cancer sticks for 100 years. The issue was with regard to SECOND-HAND smoke and how much health risk it presented and this issue arose precisely because of trial lawyers trying to sue everyone and their dog in class-action suits. How did THAT work out?
Disputing the logic behind having lawyers fleece every single business that allowed smoking? Yes, in that regard, yes, but not in regard to smoking. This is one of those duplicitous Gotcha! studies that you lefties are so “clever” about turning out but which represents nothing but strawmen. As to the Climate Change Agreement, what are YOU celebrating? Know something about the successes of this that the rest of the world doesn’t cuz it looks to me like more of the same “voluntary” measures. Whatcha got that shows that ain’t the case?
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that my point went completely over your head. The fact remains, everyone with even partially functional grey matter already knows this to be true, yet Mr. Fred Smith needs a study to tell him the painfully obvious.
Yes Fred, turns out pollution from the fossil fuel industry is actually dangerous. I know, I know, who would have thought right? Turns out, studies show that toxic gases are… toxic
