Three disturbingly different views on climate change

Written By: - Date published: 2:10 pm, June 10th, 2019 - 63 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, Donald Trump, global warming, science, uk politics, uncategorized, us politics - Tags:

The past week we have experienced a terrifyingly disturbing array of views on climate change.  The first came from the President of the United States who thought that things were fine and America has the best climate.  From the BBC:

“I believe that there’s a change in weather and I think it changes both ways,” Mr Trump told Piers Morgan in an interview that aired on Wednesday.

Mr Trump said he shared the prince’s desire for a “good climate” but blamed other nations for increasing pollution.

He has rolled back many US climate laws despite warnings from his own agencies.

Mr Trump said his meeting with Prince Charles was meant to last only 15 minutes.

“He did most of the talking, and he was really into climate change and I think that’s great,” Mr Trump said of Prince Charles on the ITV programme Good Morning Britain.

“He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate as opposed to a disaster and I agree.”

But Mr Trump once again placed the blame on other countries, namely China, India and Russia, for worsening air and water quality while claiming the US has one of “the cleanest climates there are”.

“Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change, now it’s actually called extreme weather because with extreme weather you can’t miss,” the president said.

Mr Trump pointed to past examples of weather disasters to refute the idea that “extreme weather” is becoming more common due to climate change.

“I don’t remember tornados in the United States to this extent but then when you look back 40 years ago we had the worst tornado binge we ever had. In the 1890s we had our worst hurricanes.”

It is a shame this person is too stupid to realise that his views are bizarre. 

Although it is difficult to work out if he is motivated by a klutzy misunderstanding of the science or a deep seated mendacity to the issue.  

Because he is doing is best to stuff up the US clean energy market.  From Time:

In the biggest blow he’s dealt to the renewable energy industry yet, President Donald Trump decided on Monday to slap tariffs on imported solar panels.

The U.S. will impose duties of as much as 30 percent on solar equipment made abroad, a move that threatens to handicap a $28 billion industry that relies on parts made abroad for 80 percent of its supply. Just the mere threat of tariffs has shaken solar developers in recent months, with some hoarding panels and others stalling projects in anticipation of higher costs. The Solar Energy Industries Association has projected tens of thousands of job losses in a sector that employed 260,000.

The tariffs are just the latest action Trump has taken that undermine the economics of renewable energy. The administration has already decided to pull the U.S. out of the international Paris climate agreement, rolled back Obama-era regulations on power plant-emissions and passed sweeping tax reforms that constrained financing for solar and wind. The import taxes, however, will prove to be the most targeted strike on the industry yet.

Then there was this contrary view from people who actually know what they are talking about and who have presented a dark view of our future that regrettably appears to be a coherent appraisal.  From the Herald:

In the past week, the world has experienced chaotic weather phenomena, from deathly Indian heatwaves to snow inundating parts of Queensland. Now, the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Change has issued a report predicting the end of human civilisation as we know it.

The report, terrifyingly entitled Existential climate-related security risk, glimpses 30 years into the future to the year 2050 — and the results are grim.

Authors David Spratt, a researcher into climate change, and Ian Dunlop, former chairman of the Australian Coal Association and chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading, propose a scenario in which global emissions and climate threats are ignored, and the trajectory of environmental collapse goes unchecked.

Their conclusions spell out a dire warning.

Using climate data, Spratt and Dunlop claim the Earth can expect at least a 3C rise in temperatures, which would trigger global decay and destruction of crucial ecosystems, including the Arctic, Amazon rainforests and coral reefs.

“More than a billion people may need to be relocated, and in high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end,” Spratt and Dunlop warn.

By 2050, total ecological collapse would give way to massive social consequences ranging from “increased religious fervour to outright chaos”.

The report suggests the catastrophic chain of environmental disasters will climax with widespread pandemics, forced migration from inhabitable locations and a likely nuclear war due to skirmishing for limited resources.

“Planetary and human systems (reach) a ‘point of no return’ by mid-century in which the prospect of a largely uninhabitable Earth leads to the breakdown of nations and the international order,” the report predicts.

The report is perhaps new in that it focusses on the likely effect on civilisation of climate change rather than the environmental effects.

But surely this report and all of the similar reports that have preceded it should be sufficient for people to decide to do something.  

A third approach has emerged.  English Chancellor Philip Hammond has recently claimed that climate change is too expensive to do anything.  Thankfully Downing Street ridiculed his claims.  From the Guardian:

Downing Street has shot down claims made by the chancellor, Philip Hammond, that tackling the climate crisis would cost £1tn and require spending cuts for schools, hospitals and the police force.

No 10 said plans to create a net zero carbon economy would cost no more than the UK’s existing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The firm response will be seen as a rare rebuke for Hammond, who warned Theresa May that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero could cost the country £1tn and lead to industries becoming “economically uncompetitive” without government subsidies.

In a letter to the prime minister, Hammond said the proposed 2050 net zero target – one of the most far-reaching proposed in the world – would mean less money for schools, the NHS and police forces, the Financial Times reported.

Downing Street said analysis from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) showed that the cost of a net zero carbon economy would “fall within our existing spending plans”.

It is funny that he complains about less money for schools, the NHS and the Police.  I thought this was the Conservative’s reason for being.

And sure the figure is large but Britain’s current Crown debt is 1.8 trillion GBP and its GDP is 2.06 trillion.  Britain can afford to do something about it.

Some right wing politicians do get it:

Maybe Boris should have a chat with Trump.

63 comments on “Three disturbingly different views on climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tc 1
    10 June 2019 at 3:59 pm

    Boris says what is expected to Garner support with no shame, sarcasm and with the practiced delivery of a used car salesperson.

    It's not that words aren't so much cheap with the Boris they're virtually worthless. His brexit bus sums the bs artist up.

  2. bewildered 2
    10 June 2019 at 5:05 pm

    Saying all of that the US has done more to reduce their emissions than nearly all Paris signatories including nz as a result of shale revolution, similarly most green innovations and technology is coming out of the states At the end of the day people get far to worked up over trumps utterances and tweets which in most cases are just hyperbole or trump been trump

    • WeTheBleeple 2.1
      10 June 2019 at 6:30 pm

      "The “Shale Revolution” refers to the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that enabled the United States to significantly increase its production of oil and natural gas, particularly from tight oil formations, which now account for 36% of total U.S. crude oil production."

      A Frenchman discovered photovoltaic aka solar. A Frenchman discovered tidal energy.

      Canada has three large-scale CCS projects in commercial operation, including SaskPower’s CCS facility at the Boundary Dam Power Station near Estevan, Sask., the Weyburn-Midale enhanced oil recovery projects operated by Cenovus Energy and Apache Canada, and the Shell Quest project at the Scotford oilsands upgrader near Edmonton.

      “The percentage of carbon dioxide that the MOF can absorb depends on the process,” Snurr says. “The [United States] Department of Energy target is to remove 90 per cent of carbon dioxide from a power plant; it’s likely that a process using this material could meet that target.”

      With their nanoscopic pores and incredibly high surface areas, MOFs are excellent materials for gas storage. MOFs’ vast internal surface areas allow them to hold remarkably high volumes of gas. The volume of some MOF crystals might be the size of a grain of salt, for example, but the internal surface area, if unfolded, could cover an entire football field.

      That is the US with their blue sky approach. Guess what else has tremendous surface area like described above – carbon. I can put charcoal in a chimney and do the same job as this nano-tech bullshit.

      $8000 spanners, nano-tech carbon scrubbers. LOL! They also have 'nano-sponges'…

      Go the USA, high tech genius!

      Swedish scientists have created crystals that capture CO2 much more efficiently than previously known materials, even in the presence of water.

      There's a US/EU study on injecting CO2 into rocks to turn it into rock. You just got to capture it, transport it, drill down to volcanic bedrock, inject it, seal it. Easy peasy.

      G.K. Surya Prakash and George Olah have learned to turn carbon into fuel!

      Dr. Prakash was born as the sixth child of late G.N. Krishnamurthy a noted economics professor from Bengaluru, and late Anasuyamma Krishnamurthy. He studied at the Vasanthnagar Government Primary School, and the Gandhinagar Higher Secondary School.

      But he's in the US now so…. dibs!

      US scientists have discovered how to make 'low-energy' carbon-fibre which they hope to sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars per ton. Great tech, not gonna save anyone.

      Carbon capture in Canada

      "A Canadian company, called Carbon Engineering, has published peer-reviewed findings, which show the process can now be done for less than $100 per ton. This is a major improvement on current estimates of $600 per ton."

      I reckon the US is still a major problem actually. The biggest threat of the lot.

    • Pat 2.2
      10 June 2019 at 6:39 pm

      Fuck you speak a load of shit

      • WeTheBleeple 2.2.1
        10 June 2019 at 6:44 pm

        ^^ That comment was almost like you were channeling me – the comment I made before doing some investigation on behalf of other readers. And he speaks the fecal streaks with such confidence!

    • joe90 2.3
      11 June 2019 at 10:53 pm

      Saying all of that the US has done more to reduce their emissions than nearly all Paris signatories

      BFD. Per capita they're still emitting more double what we do and nearly three times more than France

      https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US

      https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=FR&view=chart

      https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=NZ&view=chart

      • Mack . 2.3.1
        13 June 2019 at 7:19 pm

        WTF does the World Bank know about the science of the mythical man-made "climate change". It's the same as getting your medical prescription from a ventriloquist.

        • Pat 2.3.1.1
          13 June 2019 at 7:21 pm

          where have you been for the past 6 months Mack?

          • Mack . 2.3.1.1.1
            13 June 2019 at 8:14 pm

            Nah, Pat, it's more like where have YOU been for the last 30 years.

            https://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/temperatures-of-void-space-and-microstates/#comment-477093

            Read some science and get yourself enlightened.

            [That links to a nonsensical comment by you made on March 19, 2011 at 7:50 am. If you have nothing better to contribute here I’d suggest you pull your head before Lynn pulls your head off – Incognito]

            • Pat 2.3.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2019 at 8:42 pm

              Coverage by the Guardian's Graham Readfearn noted that none of the conservative media reports had sought views of the research amongst members of the scientific community. When Readfearn did so, he received severe criticisms of the work and its methods, and declarations that it was "junk science" (by David Karoly) and that the publication should be withdrawn.[3] Methodological issues with the research and criticisms made included:

              • Unexplained and selective use of proxy temperature records – only six were used and no reason was given for their choice,[3] when a recent paper showed that there are at least 692 available.[25] Their approach was criticised as "extremely unscientific" by Benjamin Henley of the University of Melbourne for making no attempt to compare their approach with actual temperature data. With results that are interpreted incorrectly and which do not support the conclusions, Henley stated that the paper should never have been published and should be withdrawn by the journal.[3] Henley made harsher comments directly to Marohasy on Twitter, describing the paper as "an absolute pile of rubbish" that "reads like a D-grade high school lab report and is utterly flawed."[26]
              • Gavin Schmidt, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, described that paper as an example of "what happens when people have their conclusions fixed before they start the work" and assessed it as "worthless." He identified an internal contradiction in their method, whereby equilibrium climate sensitivity was assumed to be solely due to natural internal variations (and thus excluding external factors including volcanic action and solar variations) despite this contradicting claims elsewhere in the paper. Schmidt also found that "something went wrong" in the digitisation of the results resulting in a temporal offset. Consequently, in the Northern Hemisphere data, "what they think is 2000, is actually 1965" and so at least 35 years of recent warming has been omitted.[3] Schmidt put his criticisms direct to Marohasy on Twitter, seeking her comments on his statement that her "conclusions are based on inaccurately cited data that's incorrectly scaled and incorrectly aligned in time."[27] Marohasy rejected Schmidt's claims as "false"[28] and declared that Schmidt was wrong[27][29] when he suggested[30]that they had used a smoothed version of the Moberg at al. (2005)[31] data set.
              • Piers Forster, the Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, criticised the "unphysical" approach taken in using extrapolation where measured data are available. For example, patterns of volcanic activity prior to 1880 have been extrapolated forward despite the actual pattern of volcanism in the previous 150 years being both well-known and significantly different from the period pre 1880.[3]
              • Author John Abbot was also criticised for claiming an affiliation to James Cook University, despite the manuscript being submitted well after his adjunct position ended.[3]

              Ah well…indeed my question was a straightforward one, not rhetorical….you seem to turn up for very brief periods every 6 months or so…at least under this moniker for the past year or so.

            • Incognito 2.3.1.1.1.2
              13 June 2019 at 9:32 pm

              See my Moderation note @ 8:14 PM.

  3. John Stowell 3
    10 June 2019 at 5:13 pm

    Still up to us what we do in New Zealand and unless we get stuck in and do something truly effective who are we to complain about others?

    • Bewildered 3.1
      10 June 2019 at 5:33 pm

      Yep people over play trump or think US is like nz, it is very different system All power does not lie in the presidency, It is just one branch of 3 that keep checks and balances on each other, similarly it has a written constitution as a federation of states protected by the Supreme Court In essence its not like nz where parliament is supreme and can do what they want ( ie gun laws etc) Likewise states can enact their own policies to a great degree on climate change ( California) no matter what trump thinks

    • greywarshark 3.2
      10 June 2019 at 7:04 pm

      JS Oh are you Superman in the mild mannered Clark Kent mode. You had better keep a good supply of kryptonite handy because you aren't up to speed about the urgency of things these days. Who are we to complain about others indeed, little old us trying to move our 4 million people to start on making our small changes, and watching the 400 millions+ want to continue BAU until either the company collapses or the world does.

  4. barry 4
    10 June 2019 at 5:27 pm

    The BNCCC are as batshit crazy as Trump. There will NOT be a 3 degrees temperature rise by 2050. At most there will be another 0.5 degrees rise.

    Such predictions are not helpful in getting people to pay attention. The real consequences are bad enough, without ridiculous exaggerations.

    • WeTheBleeple 4.1
      10 June 2019 at 6:33 pm

      Proof for your oh so confident dribbling please.

      • greywarshark 4.1.1
        10 June 2019 at 6:57 pm

        Yaddah yaddah yaddah. I think yrrab is trying to stand on his head while tying his shoelaces and the blood is flooding his brain. We are bound to have more like this as times become more difficult.

        They will do anything rather than think for themselves. It probably takes half a dozen of beer to just kickstart their thinking process along its rusty tracks.

    • Pat 4.2
      10 June 2019 at 6:36 pm

      "The scenarios "don't seem that far-fetched to me. I don't think there's anything too crazy about them," said Adam Sobel, a professor of applied physics and mathematics at Columbia University in New York City who studies atmospheric and climate dynamics."

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/05/climate-change-apocalypse-could-start-2050-if-we-do-noting/1356865001/

      • Mack . 4.2.1
        11 June 2019 at 9:10 pm

        "climate change apocalypse could start 2050…" Speculative crap from another looney academic bedwetting watermelon.

        At this present time, it looks as if the 4 horsemen haven't even saddled up yet.

      • barry 4.2.2
        12 June 2019 at 10:15 pm

        20 years ago I was arguing with climate change deniers who were saying that the world wasn't warming and that sea levels weren't rising. I made some guesses then about where we would be now and they were pretty accurate.

        If you look at the graphs of temperature and sea levels over the last 60 years and extend them another 30, you will not be far off what we are going to see by 2050. I expect sea level to rise about 10 cm more and temperatures to rise by about another 0.2 degrees. This is already shocking and unacceptable that humans are going to allow it to happen (and in fact cause it).

        There are a few extreme cases (feedback tipping points), that could cause faster rises, but they are rather unlikely. 2 degrees or more in 30 years is beyond unlikely.

        Beyond 2050 we will see another half a degree rise by about 2100, but luckily I won't be around to say I told you so.

  5. WILD KATIPO 5
    10 June 2019 at 5:58 pm

    … '' It is a shame this person is too stupid to realise that his views are bizarre''…

    Another two minute's wasted time to delete unwanted multiple copied and pasted material.

    @ thanks at IPRENT.

    Is it really stupid or bizarre? Or do you just hate on Trump as a residue of the failed theory of 'Russian collusion in rigging U.S elections ' Mueller report , – around rigging the USA elections? Can you get over it and move on?

    NOW,… you really think you have problems due to anthropomorphic climate change?… or do you agree the wooly mammoths died with such rapidity in former times that the so called paleontologists stated with alarm the fact that they died with ' tufts of grass still in their trunks'… and /or when the explosions of Krakatoa dimmed the Northern Hemisphere for 5 years and cast a pink / red glow at each and every sunset?

    My ,… there were supposedly a lot of volcanoes going off before we were even supposed to exist as a species…. according to the geologists, the paleontologists and long before the anthropologists… they called that era the carboniferous period…

    …. Or so we are led to believe…

    Do we ignore the historic warm age when England produced grapes which rivaled that of France during the Middle ages ?… or is that just a convenient Tolkien myth of Orks and Ogres?

    Will you accept the massive extinction events of the past as natural earth cycles or try to tie them into some kind of anthropomorphic interference from Homo Erectus or Homo Habililus's habitual lighting of camp fires?

    You see how silly this is getting?

    And yes,… we do not want to see the demise of polar bears , yet even nature does not need us,… they are interbreeding with brown bears…forming 'grolar or pizzly' bears…

    And that surely is a mock against all the Kings soldiers and all the Kings men… and the Bilderberger sham with global taxes on carbon, – while they relocate those same polluting industry's to third world nations to reap profits based on 'slave labour' conditions and unregulated polluting industry's.

    Get a grip on yourselves.

    Stop with the Al Gore crap who stood to gain millions out of this carbon tax scam and start to realize the con job . Yes , your sea levels are going to rise. Yes ,your climate is changing. And yes we are in for shitty weather. And yes , millions of people are going to be misplaced and refugeed because of it . But there's not a damn thing either the globalist Bilderbergers or Al Gore or any other con man group around that can do a damned thing about it.

    Accept it , and be like the animals our brethren and adapt.

    No one ever promised you a rose garden.

    This whole climate change thing has gone through so many multitude chameleon changes it is unreal. Every few years we see a new slant on the equation. When last years flavour of the month doesn't fit the narrative we suddenly get a new one.

    In all honesty ?

    You have more to fear from THIS , than rising sea levels:

    What Does a Nuclear Bomb Explosion Feel Like? – YouTube



    • WILD KATIPO 5.1
      10 June 2019 at 6:07 pm

      In honour of my Late Aunty Joyce who really was a Labour supporter in the 1970's and who wouldn't have had any truck with the freak side show for what passes as Labour now. She , and her generation did it hard. They knew what it was to bring up a family on the bare minimum ,they saw their family members die in Europe. And still they carried on keeping on keeping on.

      Lynn Anderson – I Beg Your Pardon, I Never Promised You A Rose …

      • greywarshark 5.1.1
        10 June 2019 at 6:53 pm

        Mod

        WK is having trouble working the new system for comments. Can you cut out all that blank space he has in 5? Its weirdly annoying.

        • WILD KATIPO 5.1.1.1
          10 June 2019 at 7:11 pm

          Get a grip and get honest please.

          Its not my fault as I have said.

          And please do not try the deflection route when it doesn't suit your political parameters. I am non tribalistic. I do not care for closed debate and preaching to a captive audience no matter what political stripe you claim to be.

          I thank you for your time.

  6. WeTheBleeple 6
    10 June 2019 at 6:38 pm

    Reading the above who have their own agendas it's easy to see why we're fucked. Average IQ.

    • Macro 6.1
      10 June 2019 at 6:57 pm

      +100%

    • WILD KATIPO 6.2
      10 June 2019 at 7:07 pm

      Its interesting that in the era of Gwondaland and the breaking way of continents,… and the volcanic mountain building process and formation of tectonic plates , the submerging of vast areas of former carbon lifeforms aka plants,.. that we discover ,.. supposedly tens of thousands of years later ,… an energy source.

      Which sheds light on the fallacy that the environment which we enjoy now was the same as the environment previously. In fact , it was vastly different. That is ,… according to the paleontologists.

      All we have succeeded in doing ( according to them which they never admit to ) is to release the carbon that was previously locked up in the form of oil and coal reserves. And in effect, … in a retrograde fashion , return our environment to an ' earlier ' age.

      If you study the supposed early origins of this planet , you will find that the oceans occupied massive areas of current landscape to which we currently take for granted.

      Putting Solar and Galactic stresses aside , the advent of a meteorite smashing into another planet around the sun causing the Asteroid belt,…and the fact of a series of massive extinction events occurring on this planet regardless of mere 'human wants or needs' is a reality. And no Al Gore or Bilderberger society was ever there to advise us or ward that off….

      Do you really think they would have been effective back then?

      Of course not.

      And that is exactly the point.

      There comes a time when ' all the Kings horses and all the Kings men will never put Humpty back together again'.

      Otherwise you will end up as King Canute and his followers, – trying to hold back the tide and forever being humiliated by their failure.

      • WeTheBleeple 6.2.1
        10 June 2019 at 7:13 pm

        I appreciate your passion and hope you are ok. Trying times.

      • Pat 6.2.2
        10 June 2019 at 7:38 pm

        Humans have been around for max 200,000 years….organised societies of any scale maybe a few thousand…you're describing events millions of years ago….are you really going to claim equivalence?

        • WILD KATIPO 6.2.2.1
          10 June 2019 at 7:58 pm

          What the hell nonsensical rhetorical philosophical argument is that ?

          Read the text, buddy , read the text.

          I'm talking about ( according to the flavour of the month scientists you chose to follow at the time ) and quoting your own scientific bullshit that you have been led to believe in since around the time before the late 1980's when it suddenly became fashionable to go along with the latest globalist scam epitomized by a Democrat politician of the USA of 'uniting the world' against our own stupidity,- stupidity that is reflected in those same nutjobs who were government paid and who prior to that ,… had no qualms about making a buck out of the global energy industry.

          Wise up.

          The planets climate is changing, – for better or for worse, – and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Unless you want to relocate the polluting industry's to the third world nations while the globalists fleece you of your tax dollars as you lay dieing in the belly of a Siberian Mammoth.

          Have a chat to that extinct Siberian Mammoth and get a perspective on what it was like to die with a trunkfull of tundra grass still in your gob. Maybe that'll set you straight. Ask if Al Gore had of been around back then if that would have changed things.

          • Pat 6.2.2.1.1
            10 June 2019 at 8:53 pm

            And 'the text' implies we have no agency…when the reality is we are the cause…and cruicially WE CAN do something about, though we are most unlikely to as your attitude amply displays.

            Can we stop it ?no ….but we can sure as hell reduce the impact if we so choose

            • Mack . 6.2.2.1.1.1
              11 June 2019 at 9:20 pm

              The only impact we have to reduce is the impact this looney "greenhouse" crap has on the minds of our children.

  7. greywarshark 7
    10 June 2019 at 6:50 pm

    This seems a sensible and defensible approach to climate change and drought in Hawkes Bay.

    Environment Minister David Parker said the water storage projects were of a much smaller scale than previously proposed initiatives, like the rejected Ruataniwha Dam project.

    Both projects will support horticultural production in the region by improving the security of water supply in dry years, Mr Parker said.

    Unlike the prior Ruataniwha scheme, which relied on increasing cow and cattle numbers putting more pressure on water quality, these projects will assist the conversion of livestock farms to horticulture, Mr Tabuteau said.

    Cabinet cannot continue to invest in water storage to put more dairy on the ground, he said.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/391693/pgf-spends-68m-in-hawke-s-bay-two-dams-among-main-projects

    Sounds good to me. Labour Coalition making a difference for the better.

    • WeTheBleeple 7.1
      10 June 2019 at 7:00 pm

      That's freaking brilliant. Have they been reading 'How to Get There' or got their own resident fluvial geomorphologists… hehehe.

      What are the main crops in Hawkes Bay? Great sunlight hours I hear… (googles)

      Loads of crops. This could go really well if it doesn't all end up Talleys land…

      I could probably design a cleaner set-up for the salmon farmers (my aquaculture has not required cleaning for 20 years now), but the guy sounds like a right shit. 50M profit in the last year, whinge moan I’m so important…

      • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1
        10 June 2019 at 7:20 pm

        And this is the panacea for 'climate change' ?

        Or just a feel good exercise in spending the public's purse?

        • WeTheBleeple 7.1.1.1
          10 June 2019 at 7:32 pm

          Trying to be nice but you are being a bit hysterical. You think we don't understand the urgency?

          Water is life. To capture biological carbon requires water. To transition to a high-veg based diet requires transition of dairy to gardens. Small scale earthworks for water capture completely transforms landscapes like the Loess Plateau, Gobi Desert and other projects we've been busy posting.

          While you just cuss everyone out like you're the only concerned citizen in town and the only one who knows anything. It's delusional at best.

          I ask again. Are you OK?

          • WILD KATIPO 7.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2019 at 8:14 pm

            Nothing hysterical at all.

            Havin' a good old time with you eager idealists.

            And one thing YOU WILL LEARN about me is I don't take kindly to crap, bullshit , hyperbole or fake arse bullshit for the sake of political points scoring.

            Period.

            And its a shame more don't speak up who are EXACTLY like me.

            I'm from the country , I am proudly and fiercely working class, have a Dip in science and technology and qualified as a head of security. As well as foreman in horticulture and self employed painter decorator , – what you take me for kid?

            Some sort of online noob at 55 years of age ?

            As I have said earlier on , – I don't give a flying rats shit about idealistic political bullshit. Who says they are wrong or who says they are right. Just the straight out truth.

            • WeTheBleeple 7.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2019 at 8:29 pm

              Yes, the truth is more important than all the horseshit they fling at each other. Couldn't agree more. A line needs to be drawn in the sand about bullshitting the public.

              You do sound like you've read one too many conspiracy theories and if you think global warming's a globalist hoax there's no point talking to you about it.