It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Largest Climate March in history on 09/21 in NYC to put pressure on world leaders at UN Climate Summ

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
So have they figured out where the missing heat is ? I know it was suggested that it was hiding in the oceans but so far nobody is able to say for sure if there is extra heat or where it might be because it's not in any observable data but is in the computer models they created to predict what the temps would be in the future . a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14



Hey man, thanks for the comments.

Well, to my knowledge the last 30 years have been the hottest on average in something like 800 years. It's all about global mean temps, not regional or random places.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Bilk22

I think you have a grossly misinformed or hugely assumptive take on our youth.
I wish you were right and I wrong. And as I said, it's not all, but there are a lot of kids out there that don't know how to get their hands dirty. Peace!


Yes, there will be some naive or unworked kids there.

My question for you though is why that is even relevant to this discussion?

Again, if this issue is real, pressing, and something that much OLDER global leaders are having to address as we speak, then people showing mass support for action is a good thing, regardless of whether they are young, old, experienced, not experienced, etc.

Your statements carry a new version of the old card "you all are hippies and need to take a shower and get a job. Real people don't have time to address issues like this." It's basically a combination of insult and dismissal without any facts to back it up.

"Only inexperienced or naive youth care about climate change and therefore none of this is important." See how silly that sounds?
If you haven't gotten it yet, my position is, the climate changes all on it's very own and has since the formation of our galaxy. Yes, let's be responsible with how we treat our environment, but let's not be stupid and so naive to believe we can change the forces of nature. There have been warmer periods in the history of the Earth, yet the travesties we hear about from the AGW people didn't occur.

Realize you and the multitude of others are being manipulated by the powers that be. They are selling you something which they profit from. The whole push for the AWG movement was perpetrated for profit. If you haven't gotten that, well how can you really help?

Your 100k marchers are going to contribute a lot of CO2 tomorrow, with all the yelling and chanting. Maybe it should be a silent march. That should really make a point.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
So have they figured out where the missing heat is ? I know it was suggested that it was hiding in the oceans but so far nobody is able to say for sure if there is extra heat or where it might be because it's not in any observable data but is in the computer models they created to predict what the temps would be in the future . a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14



Hey man, thanks for the comments.

Well, to my knowledge the last 30 years have been the hottest on average in something like 800 years. It's all about global mean temps, not regional or random places.


I don`t see it :

-there hasn’t been any “global warming” for 17 years and 9 months

Source

And here`s some more information :

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

Source



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Now we can talk.

Okay, well, first of all there are entire scientific studies and analyses addressing your point. The data cannot be explained by the natural ebbs and flows of climate. This has been addressed. Second, we really do affect our environment and climate, especially with the massive industrial society we have now.

This whole idea that countless scientists, world leaders, and policy professionals such as myself are all in on a huge hoax really is a bit incredible. This is not because conspiracies don't happen, but because the vast majority of scientists period agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Having worked in science and policy, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that they are all deluded and or in league with the NWO or profiteers.

In fact, the military industrial complex has been fighting any and all climate change and environmental movements for decades precisely because fossil fuels and abject industrialization are INCREDIBLY profitable.

Notice that the US for that reason and others did not sign the Kyoto protocol.


originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Bilk22

I think you have a grossly misinformed or hugely assumptive take on our youth.
I wish you were right and I wrong. And as I said, it's not all, but there are a lot of kids out there that don't know how to get their hands dirty. Peace!


Yes, there will be some naive or unworked kids there.

My question for you though is why that is even relevant to this discussion?

Again, if this issue is real, pressing, and something that much OLDER global leaders are having to address as we speak, then people showing mass support for action is a good thing, regardless of whether they are young, old, experienced, not experienced, etc.

Your statements carry a new version of the old card "you all are hippies and need to take a shower and get a job. Real people don't have time to address issues like this." It's basically a combination of insult and dismissal without any facts to back it up.

"Only inexperienced or naive youth care about climate change and therefore none of this is important." See how silly that sounds?
If you haven't gotten it yet, my position is, the climate changes all on it's very own and has since the formation of our galaxy. Yes, let's be responsible with how we treat our environment, but let's not be stupid and so naive to believe we can change the forces of nature. There have been warmer periods in the history of the Earth, yet the travesties we hear about from the AGW people didn't occur.

Realize you and the multitude of others are being manipulated by the powers that be. They are selling you something which they profit from. The whole push for the AWG movement was perpetrated for profit. If you haven't gotten that, well how can you really help?

Your 100k marchers are going to contribute a lot of CO2 tomorrow, with all the yelling and chanting. Maybe it should be a silent march. That should really make a point.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Scientific studies you say .Well here is some reality about scientific studies you may not be aware of .

Obama’s Former Science Official: ‘Climate Science Is Not Settled’

It was presented as shocking evidence of the damage being done by climate change: a species driven to extinction because of a decline in rainfall in its only habitat. Now the “rediscovery” of a species of snail is prompting questions about the role played by the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institution, in raising false alarm over an impact of climate change. –Ben Webster, The Times, 20 September 2014

The Royal Society journal refused to publish the rebuttal, saying it had been “rejected following full peer review”. The journal sent Mr Hambler the reviews of the rebuttal by two anonymous academic referees, who had rejected the criticisms made of Mr Gerlach’s paper. However, the Royal Society admitted this week, after questions from The Times, that the referees who had rejected the rebuttal were the same referees who had approved Mr Gerlach’s paper for publication. The society said it had since changed its policy on reviewing rebuttals… The society has refused to publish the rebuttal because it is seven years old. –Ben Webster, The Times, 20 September 2014
wattsupwiththat.com... This is just one of a few that has to be looked at in order to get a grip on what really might be happening when it comes to scientific studies and the PAL review process a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Now we can talk.

Okay, well, first of all there are entire scientific studies and analyses addressing your point. The data cannot be explained by the natural ebbs and flows of climate. This has been addressed. Second, we really do affect our environment and climate, especially with the massive industrial society we have now.

This whole idea that countless scientists, world leaders, and policy professionals such as myself are all in on a huge hoax really is a bit incredible. This is not because conspiracies don't happen, but because the vast majority of scientists period agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Having worked in science and policy, I can tell you that it is highly unlikely that they are all deluded and or in league with the NWO or profiteers.

In fact, the military industrial complex has been fighting any and all climate change and environmental movements for decades precisely because fossil fuels and abject industrialization are INCREDIBLY profitable.

Notice that the US for that reason and others did not sign the Kyoto protocol.


originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Bilk22

I think you have a grossly misinformed or hugely assumptive take on our youth.
I wish you were right and I wrong. And as I said, it's not all, but there are a lot of kids out there that don't know how to get their hands dirty. Peace!


Yes, there will be some naive or unworked kids there.

My question for you though is why that is even relevant to this discussion?

Again, if this issue is real, pressing, and something that much OLDER global leaders are having to address as we speak, then people showing mass support for action is a good thing, regardless of whether they are young, old, experienced, not experienced, etc.

Your statements carry a new version of the old card "you all are hippies and need to take a shower and get a job. Real people don't have time to address issues like this." It's basically a combination of insult and dismissal without any facts to back it up.

"Only inexperienced or naive youth care about climate change and therefore none of this is important." See how silly that sounds?
If you haven't gotten it yet, my position is, the climate changes all on it's very own and has since the formation of our galaxy. Yes, let's be responsible with how we treat our environment, but let's not be stupid and so naive to believe we can change the forces of nature. There have been warmer periods in the history of the Earth, yet the travesties we hear about from the AGW people didn't occur.

Realize you and the multitude of others are being manipulated by the powers that be. They are selling you something which they profit from. The whole push for the AWG movement was perpetrated for profit. If you haven't gotten that, well how can you really help?

Your 100k marchers are going to contribute a lot of CO2 tomorrow, with all the yelling and chanting. Maybe it should be a silent march. That should really make a point.
No I don't believe you and the marchers are part of a conspiracy. I'm not sure there's even a "conspiracy" per se, but more of an idea that can be sold, sort of like a religion, and then profited from. It's more of a hoax than a conspiracy.

You're "settled science" is only settled for those who want to believe. I'm not a scientist, but I can read. Much of the data that's presented in the science, is cherry-picked to fit the model. The rest is discarded. But, the science is profitable as are the alternative products that are produced, some of which are more detrimental to the environment than the products they replaced - check out CFLs. So I'm all for not polluting and being responsible. I just don't buy the AGW argument.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Are representatives from the Carbon Credit exchanges going to be there?

I would think this is in their best interests.

I bet they bring plenty of alka-seltzers.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


This whole idea that countless scientists, world leaders, and policy professionals such as myself are all in on a huge hoax really is a bit incredible.


...uhm ?

Of course lots of governments are wanting to have something with which they can slap taxes on everything as much as they want.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Are representatives from the Carbon Credit exchanges going to be there?

I would think this is in their best interests.

I bet they bring plenty of alka-seltzers.





That would be a bad idea.

The alka-seltzers I mean.

Due to the the Sodium Bicarbonate, NaHCO3, in an alka-seltzer tablet, when dropped in water, it releases CO2, so that would be contributing to increased amounts of CO2.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
The goal is to show mass support for rigorous action by national and global leaders to address climate change mitigation and adaptation.


Could you elaborate on which specific rigorous actions the marchers are endorsing?

I would support a moratorium on rainforest deforestation. The UN can't seem to stop genocides, how are they going to stop people from cutting down trees?

I'd like to see China implement the same sort of emission control standards that the US uses. If China refuses, can the UN force China to comply?

Can the UN take any real action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Why are you trying to convince "world leaders" to do something about it? The only reason we have this problem is because people want their stupid s#. They want their big house, their two cars, their 4.5 televisions/computers, iPhone, iTablet, iWatch, big-budget movies and cheeseburgers on every street corner 24/7.

So they gave it to us. You (the general "you", not specific) are the ones consuming. You are the ones who demand mass agriculture. You are the ones who think modern technological health care is a right. You are the ones who expect to be able to fly across the continent just to go shopping, and you are the ones who legitimize leaders who wage war to keep all of this stupid s# running.

In other words, the problem does not lie with world leaders. The problem is us--greedy, covetous, and all the more easily manipulated because of it. Accustomed to luxury. Totally complacent. Helpless in our own natural environment. Unless you're prepared to live without running water and like it, I don't want to hear about "concern for the planet" anymore.

Faux environmentalism.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Sorry guys, I was away for a while.

Well, there are a number of actions that we need to take, and are being discussed.

The first and most critical is decoupling the economic system from fossil fuel dependence. Even energy execs know this now.

The second is that all countries need to sign on to emission targets that are binding and ambitious.

Yes, China does need to as well, but a core legal and historical principle that is part of the negotiations is what is called "common but differentiated responsibility."

Emissions such as CO2 can last in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. The only developing country that even comes close to the developed top emitters historically is China. Cumulatively speaking, the top emitters are countries like Britain, US, Germany, and so on because they were in the first or second wave of the Industrial Revolution.

What developing nations like China, India, or Uganda have said at negotiations for 20 years now is that part of the reason that the most developed countries are ahead of others is that they enjoyed unchecked abject industrialization and environmental exploitation for several hundred years. Hence, not only do they hold more historic responsibility, factually, they also are already developed, whereas most low income countries are barely developed and did not get to enjoy 200 years of abject industrialization. Moreover, also enshrined in the negations is the right of low income developing countries to continue to develop.

Therefore, some kind of give has to be made by the already developed countries that didn't have to deal with regulations during their development process, i.e. the west and a few others. This may be giving cheap or free technological transfer, which has been discussed, or more rigorous standards for the already developed. Because again, to a certain degree the developed countries "already got theirs." Trust me, everything I just said is all discussed amongst scientists, leaders, and so on.

The UN process right now is two-fold: 1) the IFCCC negotiations that are in progress with the very initial goal I first noted, all countries signing on to an appropriate target given their level of development and ability 2) The upcoming Sustainable Development Goals, which will apply to all countries from 2015-2030.

You bring up a good question: enforcement. These agreements have sought very hard to get feedback from everyone, but the UN does not have the policing power with this stuff. This is because most people won't give it to them. These will be voluntary agreements.


originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
The goal is to show mass support for rigorous action by national and global leaders to address climate change mitigation and adaptation.


Could you elaborate on which specific rigorous actions the marchers are endorsing?

I would support a moratorium on rainforest deforestation. The UN can't seem to stop genocides, how are they going to stop people from cutting down trees?

I'd like to see China implement the same sort of emission control standards that the US uses. If China refuses, can the UN force China to comply?

Can the UN take any real action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Sure, but you can't use single examples to throw out a much larger body of research.

You gave an example of a not-extinct species.

The problem is, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the factual massive amounts of species becoming endangered or extinct each year due to habitat loss. This will accelerate as the climate changes. There is absolutely no way to get around the fact that many species are very adapted to specific ecosystems that if changed, can wipe them out. And, larger species that rely on or feed on those also then get affected.

Right now we are entering what is called the "6th great extinction." The rate of biodiversity and species loss is estimated to be more than during the extinction event surrounding the dinosaurs.


originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Scientific studies you say .Well here is some reality about scientific studies you may not be aware of .

Obama’s Former Science Official: ‘Climate Science Is Not Settled’

It was presented as shocking evidence of the damage being done by climate change: a species driven to extinction because of a decline in rainfall in its only habitat. Now the “rediscovery” of a species of snail is prompting questions about the role played by the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institution, in raising false alarm over an impact of climate change. –Ben Webster, The Times, 20 September 2014

The Royal Society journal refused to publish the rebuttal, saying it had been “rejected following full peer review”. The journal sent Mr Hambler the reviews of the rebuttal by two anonymous academic referees, who had rejected the criticisms made of Mr Gerlach’s paper. However, the Royal Society admitted this week, after questions from The Times, that the referees who had rejected the rebuttal were the same referees who had approved Mr Gerlach’s paper for publication. The society said it had since changed its policy on reviewing rebuttals… The society has refused to publish the rebuttal because it is seven years old. –Ben Webster, The Times, 20 September 2014
wattsupwiththat.com... This is just one of a few that has to be looked at in order to get a grip on what really might be happening when it comes to scientific studies and the PAL review process a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Um, the problem is that your guys' "hoax" requires that not just some government leaders but countless scientists, policy professionals, and other leaders be in on it. Literally 10's of thousands of people worldwide. It's ridiculous.

Then the next step on your guys' end is to say we are just wrong.

Well, there is a wealth of data and peer-reviewed evidence showing that natural causes don't explain fully the current climate change.

There is very little peer-reviewed scientific studies from credible sources taking apart AWG. I challenge you to post heavily peer-reviewed sources from a credible institute that do so. There probably are a few, but they are the vast minority.


originally posted by: BornAgainAlien
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


This whole idea that countless scientists, world leaders, and policy professionals such as myself are all in on a huge hoax really is a bit incredible.


...uhm ?

Of course lots of governments are wanting to have something with which they can slap taxes on everything as much as they want.






posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Most global leaders actually are already publicly saying we do have to address climate change. It may not seem like it to people not in the development world or political world, but very few people are arguing anymore at that level whether or not something needs to be done.

Of course the solution requires ALL people or a majority at least to change their lives to be more sustainable, yes. That is the only real long-term solution. In that sense, I agree with you that random leaders aren't really the problem.

However, again, one part of the solution is that global leaders find a way to work together to address a global challenge that transcends global boundaries. Some of the solutions do require massive cooperation, for example providing discount patents for green technology to developing countries so that they can fight poverty and develop but also not harm the environment as much. Other needs for negotiation include the global economy and energy system and making national commitments to address various energy/climate change issues.

This is why these leaders are meeting this month here in NY. And because these negotiations are a major part of the global community addressing it, it makes sense to have a big showing of public support. Remember, this is not a protest but a large activism gathering to really bring this key issue to the fore.

As to your last point, that is an extreme view.

Virtually no one in the environmental and global sustainable development movement, outside of a few radicals, advocates people not enjoying life, eating, traveling a bit, and having running water.

Sustainability simply means that we live within our environmental means, literally within the Earth's budget. What is not in line with that is excessive consumption and production, not consuming itself. People should be able to understand that simple concept, that it's just being responsible with the natural system we live in.



originally posted by: NthOther
Why are you trying to convince "world leaders" to do something about it? The only reason we have this problem is because people want their stupid s#. They want their big house, their two cars, their 4.5 televisions/computers, iPhone, iTablet, iWatch, big-budget movies and cheeseburgers on every street corner 24/7.

So they gave it to us. You (the general "you", not specific) are the ones consuming. You are the ones who demand mass agriculture. You are the ones who think modern technological health care is a right. You are the ones who expect to be able to fly across the continent just to go shopping, and you are the ones who legitimize leaders who wage war to keep all of this stupid s# running.

In other words, the problem does not lie with world leaders. The problem is us--greedy, covetous, and all the more easily manipulated because of it. Accustomed to luxury. Totally complacent. Helpless in our own natural environment. Unless you're prepared to live without running water and like it, I don't want to hear about "concern for the planet" anymore.

Faux environmentalism.


edit on 20-9-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Are representatives from the Carbon Credit exchanges going to be there?

I would think this is in their best interests.

I bet they bring plenty of alka-seltzers.






edit on 20-9-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Just conversations, I think about this and other serious issues all the time and talk about them in an age appropriate manner of course. At your sons age, if you're bringing him ( my son has gone to marches and protests with me before, it's best to stay on the outskirts by the way, and watch the cops movements and behaviors and be ready to duck out), it's best to keep it simple... that you want to make sure that the planet is healthy, is true and simple enough.

My son is 15 tomorrow and anything Mom is into can't be cool, I'm sure that will change... it did for me with my mom.

Thanks for the birthday wishes for him.


Thanks for the tips. Yeah, I agree that especially with protest like Occupy or against Iraq things can get dicey. With a little one parents have to be careful. I'll probably wait a few more years to take him to such things. For now, I just focus as you say on simple messages, take him out in nature, try to teach him respect for nature.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Why are you trying to convince "world leaders" to do something about it? The only reason we have this problem is because people want their stupid s#. They want their big house, their two cars, their 4.5 televisions/computers, iPhone, iTablet, iWatch, big-budget movies and cheeseburgers on every street corner 24/7.

So they gave it to us. You (the general "you", not specific) are the ones consuming. You are the ones who demand mass agriculture. You are the ones who think modern technological health care is a right. You are the ones who expect to be able to fly across the continent just to go shopping, and you are the ones who legitimize leaders who wage war to keep all of this stupid s# running.

In other words, the problem does not lie with world leaders. The problem is us--greedy, covetous, and all the more easily manipulated because of it. Accustomed to luxury. Totally complacent. Helpless in our own natural environment. Unless you're prepared to live without running water and like it, I don't want to hear about "concern for the planet" anymore.

Faux environmentalism.


While I agree for the most part, must illustrate that there is more responsible than just the people, but the ones taking advantage for their own as well. We're already divided and being more so, partly because of this manufactured consumer culture, feeding the corruption.



Exactly, wonder how many are going to show to the march between their all important TV shows and bogged down at endless jobs to afford their new sports cars.

They will give you exactly what you DO NOT want. Not that it isn't already happening with the economie's downturns. In the name of less carbon footprints:

Welcome to Utopia Dystopia.


Marriage is also discouraged. Financially you only have time for college and work, mingling through multi partners is a better option. If you must... procreate, limit to one child, less carbon footprints. You are to be encouraged to have one pet instead of children. That is if your landlord allows so.

People will encouraged to live in cities, and be renters. That is because nature must be protected. There will be no need to own property, nor own a 2,000 sq ft home. A 150 sq ft apartment in a housing unit with similar units is sufficient.

You walk or ride a bike to work to save energy, Prius cars don't cut it.

From smart meters to appliances that also monitor the amount of energy that you use: Small TV because it saves energy. Keep the cell phone but no tablets they are too big. Cellphones, no only helps them track your whereabouts, but to make sure your carbon output is low.

Remain with fitness, obesity, persistent conditions only clog up healthcare and create an obese footprint. No more eating meat, the weight in methane gas output from cattle that make fast food viable while living deforested Amazon Jungles that cannot fight carbon causes a huge carbon output.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You`re doing the same fearmongering as I see from politicians and hear from MSM lately.

And I am supposed to believe this isn`t organized by governments to justify more actions ?



It is put together by The Climate Group, which includes business and government organizations focusing on the rapid scale-up of low carbon energy and technology.

Source



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

As to your last point, that is an extreme view.

I took an extreme position there to make a point. I'll try to clarify:

Your water just doesn't magically come out of the tap, of course. I'm from Arizona (also a somewhat extreme example when talking about water, but it's what I know best). Where I live now I have a well, so the process is somewhat simplified for me, but if you live in "metro Phoenix proper" there is an enormous amount of industrial infrastructure required to make that water come out the spigot.

To support the population here (which shouldn't even exist), the Colorado, Verde, and Salt Rivers had to be dammed a combined ten times (at minimum) to create enough artificial reservoirs to meet our water usage requirements, irrevocably altering or destroying local ecosystems in the process (see Glen Canyon or the Tonto Basin). Of course they built epic canals to transport all that water to massive treatment facilities (don't forget your fluoride!), then you have the main lines, all the plumbing in your house, and then you finally get the water after paying through the nose for it.

All the concrete for the dams and the canals had to come from somewhere. All the copper, brass, steel and iron had to be mined, sifted, sorted, smelted, cast, transported and installed with human labor (I won't get into that part here) and industrial machinery.

The point: there are processes behind our modern conveniences and distractions that often go completely ignored by the mainstream environmental movement. Water in Arizona is but one simple example. Everything we take for granted requires so many destructive and toxic industrial processes that we're largely oblivious to. There is no such thing as "green technology". It is an oxymoron.

But that's probably for another thread.

Anyway. The next time some hemp-waving environmentalist tries to force you to buy different light bulbs, ask him how the newer ones are made. Ask him where his water comes from. Ask him where he thinks the plastic in his iPhone comes from. Ask him how many highly toxic byproducts are created in the production of solar panels. Ask him how many wars have been fought to sustain and control self-indulgent populations.

He probably won't have any idea.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join