But global warming isn't happening?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
What "finite" resources are you talking about here? Oil? Okay... what proof do you have that this is a "finite" resource? I know that we believe oil comes from the decaying dinosaurs underneath the many layers of earth, but how do we know that we know everything? How do we know that it's impossible the planet may continue to produce oil from decayed plant/human/animal materials for eons into the future? It may be, that our planet is much more resourceful than we imagine.

Let's be clear before some pinhead chortles in... I am not saying that this IS THE CASE... but what if we don't KNOW everything? Just a question!!



This is a compelling question, and probably deserves it's very own thread, but I would be interested in what you think we should do to control population? Should we set a 'maximum' limit, and say that everyone who enters the world over that limit has to be exterminated? How do you handle this one? Again... just curious as to what you think we can do, because I can't find a moral solution to this problem, to be honest. We continue to advance as a species, and become smarter and wiser, enabling us to live longer healthier lives, we eliminate diseases entirely, saving billions of lives probably, we've created modern conveniences to make surviving easier, and we've developed a mindset that 'living' is precious and important to everyone, and as a result, even more people are there to procreate. So what do we do?

I'm talking about those resources that we consider essential to our existence and comfort that are in finite quantities.
I accept what you say about not knowing and would counter with if we do not know we should take even more care in our use of them.

As far as population is concerned it wouldn't surprise me to see the sanctity of life becoming a discussion topic within another billion of us and the abolition of the idea before we reach say ten billion. That is basically what happens in nature and we are part of that.

Short answer: I dunno.
 
What "finite" resources are you talking about here? Oil? Okay... what proof do you have that this is a "finite" resource? I know that we believe oil comes from the decaying dinosaurs underneath the many layers of earth, but how do we know that we know everything? How do we know that it's impossible the planet may continue to produce oil from decayed plant/human/animal materials for eons into the future? It may be, that our planet is much more resourceful than we imagine.

Let's be clear before some pinhead chortles in... I am not saying that this IS THE CASE... but what if we don't KNOW everything? Just a question!!



This is a compelling question, and probably deserves it's very own thread, but I would be interested in what you think we should do to control population? Should we set a 'maximum' limit, and say that everyone who enters the world over that limit has to be exterminated? How do you handle this one? Again... just curious as to what you think we can do, because I can't find a moral solution to this problem, to be honest. We continue to advance as a species, and become smarter and wiser, enabling us to live longer healthier lives, we eliminate diseases entirely, saving billions of lives probably, we've created modern conveniences to make surviving easier, and we've developed a mindset that 'living' is precious and important to everyone, and as a result, even more people are there to procreate. So what do we do?

Dixie, you are just talking rubbish it takes tens of millions of years to produce oil naturally.
 
You sound that way because you said there was nothing we could do about it...as though it was God's will. No, you don't seem to be aware of the science behind Hanson and what he's been saying all these years. You ignore so much it's unbelievable but probably why you can't connect the dots.

As though? Whether some people believe "it's God's will" or not, there is nothing we can do about it. I am aware that Hanson isn't 20,000 years old, so he wasn't around to observe the last major change in earth's climate cycle. I am aware that the theory (which is relatively new in terms of earth's history) he espouses is based on information that was manipulated and biased to give a false impression, and that has been revealed to the public now. When you have to start "connecting dots" to come to your conclusions, there is a very real possibility some dot you've connected is wrong.

There are dot options you have simply overlooked, which give you a completely different picture in the end. For example, did you know that botanical evidence shows, up until about 6,000 years ago, the plant life on earth was starving for CO2? Many archaeologists think this could be the reason so many civilizations vanished in the period before agriculture. This makes sense, they couldn't grow anything, the atmosphere wasn't rich enough in CO2 to make it easy. Now the atmosphere accumulated CO2 through natural means over time, and eventually we were able to farm lands and grow crops and sustain civilizations. But... there were no factories or industries churning out CO2 at that time, how did it manage to accumulate? It did... we know it did... but no humans contributed.

I'm not saying God did it! I believe the Earth is an amazing planet, and has astounding ability to self-sustain and self-regulate. If we ever push Earth over the edge as far as being a burden, we will be eliminated from the equation by Earth. The power of the planet is greater than our ability to control it, and we should understand this. In that respect, it doesn't really matter what we think or what we try to do, the Earth will decide, it's up to the Earth, not us.
 
Dixie, you are just talking rubbish it takes tens of millions of years to produce oil naturally.

Well... that's what I said, isn't it? Over time, it IS produced... so it can't be "finite," can it?

Also, keep in mind... there are depths in the ocean we have never reached, places on this planet that we have never explored or seen. We honestly know more about distant stars and planets, than we know about the bottom of the ocean on Earth. Not that there is some big 'oil machine' down there, but the point is, there is a LOT we don't know about our planet and how it functions. "Science" is kind of a new kid on the block, in terms of human evolution. To assume that we've cracked all the mysteries in a matter of 20-30 years, is laughable to me. We are like little infants in a crib, in a somewhat dimly lit room... we can see out... we are aware of something out there... we know our blanket and teddy... but what is beyond that rectangular opening on the wall, is beyond our comprehension.
 
Short answer: I dunno.

From my scrapbook of ideas... (this one is for a porn movie--I still need a good title!)

It's 2055, and we finally allow measures to control population, by all males under 30 having mandatory sterilization. The idea being; to eliminate a generation of reproduction, thus 'correcting' our overpopulation problem. But just as soon as all young bucks are sterilized, we are devastated by a cataclysmic disaster, and it wipes out almost all of human civilization. So the old geezers who weren't sterilized, are 'forced' to repopulate the planet with all the young hot babes... and that's where the hi-jinx begin! ;)
 
this thread is an example of the caricature alarmist CAGW proponents try to peddle in an attempt to try to discredit others.

skeptical people do not doubt the temperature derived by thermometers.
Why do you insist on making the same strawman argument over and over?
 
Dixie, you are just talking rubbish it takes tens of millions of years to produce oil naturally.

Says who? Provide proof. We have plenty. The only thing lacking is political courage.

Want energy independence? Drill
Want to bring down the price of oil? Drill
Want to create hundreds of thousands of jobs? Drill

DRILL BABY DRILL.

The only people who believe drilling for oil won't work are either anti capitalist ideologues or fucking ignorant assholes
 
You don't seem to have a working knowledge of the difference between weather and global warming. How can you claim wind power doesn't save on CO2 emissions and then recommend nuclear, gas/fracking ? Insane.

Because he's an oil industry shill.
 
Hard-core deniers assert that the current warming is just part of a natural cycle. Joe Bastardi, for instance, in a Climate Progress comment, absurdly predicted that “the earth will cool back … to levels we saw in the late 70s, and the [Arctic sea] ice will increase back to those levels in the N hemisphere.“ Not.

The cynical, climate-destroyers at Exxon, however, are placing a massive bet that global warming is real and that the Arctic will keep warming — even as they keep funding deniers to obfuscate the science and block action (after they publicly stated they would stop such funding).

Below is a guest post by Christopher Jones on this subject. Jones is a Ciriacy-Wantrup fellow at the University of California-Berkeley.

Exxon’s Climate Admission

by Christopher Jones

This just in: Exxon Mobil has made a multi-billion dollar acknowledgement that climate change is real and is happening now.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit this, though. Exxon would like you to believe that climate change is neither real nor urgent. That is why they have spent millions of dollars over the last several years funding climate skeptics and fighting legislation that would regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. When you hear climate skeptics speak, there’s a good chance that Exxon money is in their pocket.

Actions, however, speak louder than words. And Exxon’s most recent action was a thunderclap. According to reports, Exxon has just signed an extensive deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, to develop promising offshore oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The companies will begin by investing $3.2 billion to explore in the Kara Sea, with the potential of increasing the investment to $500 billion in the future. Exxon is so convinced of the potential of these sites that it is giving Rosneft ownership rights in several of its global properties to complete the deal.

Large deposits of gas and oil have been known to exist in the Arctic Ocean for decades. So why did they make this deal now? One key thing has changed: the arctic ice is melting rapidly. The Kara Sea has typically been covered by ice floes nine months of the year or more, making commercial development of its resources unprofitable. But for the last several years, the extent and duration of the arctic ice has been diminishing, a phenomenon the vast majority of scientists believe to be caused by climate change. Suddenly, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean is looking far more attractive. Exxon has realized that a warming planet offers some new opportunities for profit and is adjusting its strategic decisions accordingly.

Exxon is not the only big oil company whose actions show it believes climate change to be real. British Petroleum made a major play for developing the same resources several months ago, but the proposed deal was rejected by a coalition of BP’s other Russian business partners. Not only does big oil know climate change is happening, it is planning its future around it.

That does not mean Exxon is likely to publicize this knowledge. Despite issuing a tepid statement acknowledging anthropogenic climate change in 2007 and promising to cease funding anti-climate change groups in 2008, Exxon remains up to its old tricks. Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed a continued pattern of funding for climate skeptics as well as collaborations with the conservative Koch Industries to support legislation that removes any restrictions on carbon emissions.

We should no longer be distracted by these words. Exxon is a smart and savvy company, and even if its actions are reprehensible, they make sense in a political system that allows corporations to pay millions of dollars to avoid costly regulations. Blaming Exxon for these activities is like blaming a raccoon for going through your trash. They’re simply responding to available opportunities.

This is exactly why we should focus on actions, not words. This deal is a multi-billion dollar investment predicated on Exxon’s belief that the planet is warming. It is one of the most powerful admissions of the reality of climate change imaginable. Michele Bachmann and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot blame this on disconnected academic scientists or members of a liberal conspiracy. This is the embodiment of free market American capitalism saying climate change is real.

All this begs the question: If Exxon Mobil believes climate change is worth acting on now, isn’t it time for the rest of us to follow suit?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/10/316176/exxon-climate-change-deniers/
 
Hard-core deniers assert that the current warming is just part of a natural cycle. Joe Bastardi, for instance, in a Climate Progress comment, absurdly predicted that “the earth will cool back … to levels we saw in the late 70s, and the [Arctic sea] ice will increase back to those levels in the N hemisphere.“ Not.

The cynical, climate-destroyers at Exxon, however, are placing a massive bet that global warming is real and that the Arctic will keep warming — even as they keep funding deniers to obfuscate the science and block action (after they publicly stated they would stop such funding).

Below is a guest post by Christopher Jones on this subject. Jones is a Ciriacy-Wantrup fellow at the University of California-Berkeley.

Exxon’s Climate Admission

by Christopher Jones

This just in: Exxon Mobil has made a multi-billion dollar acknowledgement that climate change is real and is happening now.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit this, though. Exxon would like you to believe that climate change is neither real nor urgent. That is why they have spent millions of dollars over the last several years funding climate skeptics and fighting legislation that would regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. When you hear climate skeptics speak, there’s a good chance that Exxon money is in their pocket.

Actions, however, speak louder than words. And Exxon’s most recent action was a thunderclap. According to reports, Exxon has just signed an extensive deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, to develop promising offshore oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The companies will begin by investing $3.2 billion to explore in the Kara Sea, with the potential of increasing the investment to $500 billion in the future. Exxon is so convinced of the potential of these sites that it is giving Rosneft ownership rights in several of its global properties to complete the deal.

Large deposits of gas and oil have been known to exist in the Arctic Ocean for decades. So why did they make this deal now? One key thing has changed: the arctic ice is melting rapidly. The Kara Sea has typically been covered by ice floes nine months of the year or more, making commercial development of its resources unprofitable. But for the last several years, the extent and duration of the arctic ice has been diminishing, a phenomenon the vast majority of scientists believe to be caused by climate change. Suddenly, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean is looking far more attractive. Exxon has realized that a warming planet offers some new opportunities for profit and is adjusting its strategic decisions accordingly.

Exxon is not the only big oil company whose actions show it believes climate change to be real. British Petroleum made a major play for developing the same resources several months ago, but the proposed deal was rejected by a coalition of BP’s other Russian business partners. Not only does big oil know climate change is happening, it is planning its future around it.

That does not mean Exxon is likely to publicize this knowledge. Despite issuing a tepid statement acknowledging anthropogenic climate change in 2007 and promising to cease funding anti-climate change groups in 2008, Exxon remains up to its old tricks. Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed a continued pattern of funding for climate skeptics as well as collaborations with the conservative Koch Industries to support legislation that removes any restrictions on carbon emissions.

We should no longer be distracted by these words. Exxon is a smart and savvy company, and even if its actions are reprehensible, they make sense in a political system that allows corporations to pay millions of dollars to avoid costly regulations. Blaming Exxon for these activities is like blaming a raccoon for going through your trash. They’re simply responding to available opportunities.

This is exactly why we should focus on actions, not words. This deal is a multi-billion dollar investment predicated on Exxon’s belief that the planet is warming. It is one of the most powerful admissions of the reality of climate change imaginable. Michele Bachmann and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot blame this on disconnected academic scientists or members of a liberal conspiracy. This is the embodiment of free market American capitalism saying climate change is real.

All this begs the question: If Exxon Mobil believes climate change is worth acting on now, isn’t it time for the rest of us to follow suit?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/10/316176/exxon-climate-change-deniers/

It is always the same old canards, that climate sceptics are all beholden to Exxon and anybody that has a varying opinion is an industry shill. Are all these former NASA employees in the pay of Big Oil as well?


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Blanquita Cullum
703-307-9510
bqview@mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence



HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012. 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.
H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

  • “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
  • “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
  • “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
/s/ Anita Gale
/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
/s/ Thomas J. Harmon
/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
/s/ Tom Ohesorge
/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years
/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
 
It is always the same old canards, that climate sceptics are all beholden to Exxon and anybody that has a varying opinion is an industry shill. Are all these former NASA employees in the pay of Big Oil as well?

But you are an industry shill. That's why you're trying to change the subject.
 
But you are an industry shill. That's why you're trying to change the subject.

Do you have any background in science or are you yet another liberal arts graduate? I am sure that you won't say but that your silence will answer for you! I love the way that people admire NASA for landing one ton robots on Mars but do not think their opinion amounts to anything when it comes to AGW except for that self publicist James Hansen, of course.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any background in science or are you yet another liberal arts graduate? I am sure that you won't say but that your silence will answer for you! I love the way that people admire NASA for landing one ton robots on Mars but do not think their opinion amounts to anything when it comes to AGW.

Goody for you. Find my posts where I applaud Nasa, anywhere. All the big oil companies have admitted on their websites that global warming exists, and that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause. Check for yourself. The article I linked has more damning information if you'd bothered to read it. Exxon and others acknowledge the reality and are planning to maximize the opportunity. Your denial and protestations to the contrary are now irrelevant.
 
Goody for you. Find my posts where I applaud Nasa, anywhere. All the big oil companies have admitted on their websites that global warming exists, and that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause. Check for yourself. The article I linked has more damning information if you'd bothered to read it. Exxon and others acknowledge the reality and are planning to maximize the opportunity. Your denial and protestations to the contrary are now irrelevant.

Have you ever heard of PR, I'm sure you must be familiar with the concept? All the Big Oil companies can now see the great profits to made from wind turbine and other subsidies but they have to repent at the altar of AGW to get their hands on the filthy lucre. Ask yourself one question, what have all those NASA people got in common? They are all ex-employees so they do not feel the need to service the great big bullshit machine anymore. There is no guile or artifice behind that letter, they are just telling like it is, I think you know that to be true otherwise you would have tried to discredit them.

Whilst you are pondering, ask yourself why Goldman Sachs are so keen on carbon trading?
 
Have you ever heard of PR, I'm sure you must be familiar with the concept? All the Big Oil companies can now see the great profits to made from wind turbine and other subsidies but they have to repent at the altar of AGW to get their hands on the filthy lucre. Ask yourself one question, what have all those NASA people got in common? They are all ex-employees so they do not feel the need to service the great big bullshit machine anymore. There is no guile or artifice behind that letter, they are just telling like it is, I think you know that to be true otherwise you would have tried to discredit them.

Whilst you are pondering, ask yourself why Goldman Sachs are so keen on carbon trading?

Changing the subject again, I see....
 
Back
Top