It's only economical because of Government subsidies.Kmarion wrote:
That sounds like wise economical choices.Spark wrote:
Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.
All of which receive huge govt subsidies here.Kmarion wrote:
That sounds like wise economical choices.Spark wrote:
Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.
Fuck Israel
feed in tarriff and rebate made solar panels cheapish (UNTIL THEY WERE FUCKING MEANS-TESTED thanks mr rudd), solar heating saves heaps on heating the pool, energy efficiency saves money anyway and public transport is a given considering the price of fuel over here.Kmarion wrote:
That sounds like wise economical choices.Spark wrote:
Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-21 23:27:51)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Some of the comments bleow are not directly at you, but I think you might find them interesting.Spark wrote:
If my model didn't work I would be inclined to say it was a travesty as well. It does not, however, disprove the theory.The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.This quote makes me feel lost because I am completely out of context here. On the surface it looks like straight data fudging but looking deeper (especially "My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this," "Removing ENSO") I think things are much more complicated than this.So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
In any case, the thing that I most care about about is the fact that they are trying to explain or analyse the blips, which is the main point.
I was looking for some of the fall out over these hacked/leaked documents and came across this website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … /#comments of course these comments have been vetted by pro-GW supporters to prevent "obnoxious" view points. but there are still a few gems which I find illuminating. There are over 600 comments in the past couple of days over this and I think the key is to look at the ones that the staffers felt compelled write replies to.
"Most likely the one most damaging is any discussion of ways to avoid releasing data and hiding behind IP agreements."
So these scientists do not release their data sets or their modeling or I guess even their raw statistical results. And they use IP (intellectual property) agreements as shields to claim that the lack of disclosure is mandated.
This is very interesting because if a person wanted to debunk these guys, you wouldn't be able to, it would be impossible to do without have the raw data they used, their complied data, their model and their results. So if these guys are writing these papers and those papers are supposed to be peer reviewed, how is any peer review possible without disclosure of that information. and of course those papers are only highlighted in mainstream media as scietific proof of GW and the evils of CO2. so public opinion on the subject is based on a cursory review of a previous cursoy review, now that explains a lot.
Reading further in the comments its apparent that these scientists are buying their data sets from a commericial source and the commercial source has IP agreement to prevent their release, which of course precludes others from examining the accuracy of the data or using it for free. I guess if you bought the data you would probably be precluded from public disclosure of the fact that the data was flawed, it would all depend on how the non disclosure agreement was written into teh IP agreement. The more that comes out of this the more apparent that there is a real lack of transparancy that runs many levels thick.
The more this opens up the more it stinks
Most of the commetns are about how "illegal" or how "out of context" the emails probably are. Which raises two short points
1. the emails are out there and they raise serious questions that need answer
2. if the e-amils are out of context then the simplest thing to do would be to release all the emails, that would either clear up the matter or sink these guys entirely.
Here's another one where half of the Climate Research journal editorial board resigned after a paper was published that stated
"The article in question (Soon and Baliunas, 2003) was published at the end of January 2003. It is in fact a literature review of over 240 previously published studies of climate proxy records (such as tree rings, glaciers and ocean sediments) covering the last 1000 years. It contains some startling and controversial conclusions, notably: “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium’ and ‘Overall, the 20th century does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records which have been sampled world-wide.”" http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm
They resigned because a contary paper was published. One sinlge paper slipped through and it was a controversy. So I guess the only papers that are suppsed to make peer review are the ones that are pro-gw... now what kind of lesson does that message send to an aspiring graduate student who dreams of publishing and entering into academia with these people?
This is all very interesting and red hot... I can't wait to see some of the fallout over all this. If anything this should bury the carbon credit legislation even more. Anyway, it late here but I'm interested to reading more about this tomorrow.
Which is what I said I would like to see - I know that won't happen though (I know you weren't directly talking about me)2. if the e-amils are out of context then the simplest thing to do would be to release all the emails, that would either clear up the matter or sink these guys entirely.
However, we would not need not just the emails but all the data and papers.
It won't, if the debate here is anything to go by.If anything this should bury the carbon credit legislation even more.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-21 23:26:05)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Not everyone lives in Australia. Solar wouldn't work here for half the year. Wind turbines and thermal don't work here either. This is why all of the current green technology you worship doesn't work.Spark wrote:
You have to decarbonise the grid first, though.JohnG@lt wrote:
The future is electric vehicles. Sort of. They don't really work for city dwellers that don't have a garage where they can plug in. If there were enough electric vehicles on the road then I'm sure something would be worked out though. Gas stations didn't exist before there were enough cars on the road to support them.Spark wrote:
So, people will switch to ethanol, which will do next to nothing to alleviate pollution issues and leave a lot of very hungry people. Hoo fucking ray.Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.Here's the deal though. You guys all feel very strongly about the subject but the irony of this entire conversation is that I'm going to be the only one of us doing anything to fix the problems. Get off your asses and do something about it besides whining on a video game board and expecting your government to fix your perceived problems for you.
Btw, this is exactly why you don't destroy an industry like coal power plants before you have viable replacement technology. Not only does it need to be planned and tested thoroughly, it needs to be built and online before you even think about replacement. You don't completely destroy an industry before there is an alternative. That's just completely asinine.
Also, another side effect of replacing this specific technology is that you destroy many more jobs than you create. Coal mining jobs are gone, railway jobs are gone, power plant jobs are gone, environmental testing jobs are gone and they're all replaced by manpower unintensive jobs that can be run by a few people in a control room. You're going to cause massive unemployment. But hey, thinking about the small picture is way more impressive than thinking about all the big picture ramifications.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-22 08:14:56)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Ohh you think little Jimbo's job driving a choo choo is the big picture. How cute.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not everyone lives in Australia. Solar wouldn't work here for half the year. Wind turbines and thermal don't work here either. This is why all of the current green technology you worship doesn't work.Spark wrote:
You have to decarbonise the grid first, though.JohnG@lt wrote:
The future is electric vehicles. Sort of. They don't really work for city dwellers that don't have a garage where they can plug in. If there were enough electric vehicles on the road then I'm sure something would be worked out though. Gas stations didn't exist before there were enough cars on the road to support them.Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.Here's the deal though. You guys all feel very strongly about the subject but the irony of this entire conversation is that I'm going to be the only one of us doing anything to fix the problems. Get off your asses and do something about it besides whining on a video game board and expecting your government to fix your perceived problems for you.
Btw, this is exactly why you don't destroy an industry like coal power plants before you have viable replacement technology. Not only does it need to be planned and tested thoroughly, it needs to be built and online before you even think about replacement. You don't completely destroy an industry before there is an alternative. That's just completely asinine.
Also, another side effect of replacing this specific technology is that you destroy many more jobs than you create. Coal mining jobs are gone, railway jobs are gone, power plant jobs are gone, environmental testing jobs are gone and they're all replaced by manpower unintensive jobs that can be run by a few people in a control room. You're going to cause massive unemployment. But hey, thinking about the small picture is way more impressive than thinking about all the big picture ramifications.
Why don't you wait till we have perpetual droughts where none of your crops will grow, have flooding which destroys houses and cause land slides displacing millions of people, as well as destroying the few crops we do manage to grow. Where major dust storms are a regular occurrence and wild fires burn for 10 months of the year. Where hurricanes that make Katrina look like a bad storm hit places like New York and into Canada on a regular basis. Where coastal cities and towns have to build massive dykes or abandon millions of homes. Where the Himalayan glaciers melt denying a water source to over a billion people, Where the ocean currents shut down causing Northern Europe to freeze over in a mini ice age. Where mass extinction of plant and animal life causes a massive disruption to the food chain where plagues of biblical proportion are an annual occurrence.
Yes, I can definitely see how Jimbo's choo choo is more important.
Right. All that stuff is going to come about if we don't stop burning carbon RIGHT NOW. THIS VERY FUCKING SECOND OR THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!!!! Every generation, people have been convinced that the apocalypse is going to happen and the world is going to end. Now those people have jumped on the climate change bandwagon and are touting it as the end of the world. I prefer the jesus freaks on this one, at least they're consistent.DrunkFace wrote:
Ohh you think little Jimbo's job driving a choo choo is the big picture. How cute.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not everyone lives in Australia. Solar wouldn't work here for half the year. Wind turbines and thermal don't work here either. This is why all of the current green technology you worship doesn't work.Spark wrote:
You have to decarbonise the grid first, though.
Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.
Btw, this is exactly why you don't destroy an industry like coal power plants before you have viable replacement technology. Not only does it need to be planned and tested thoroughly, it needs to be built and online before you even think about replacement. You don't completely destroy an industry before there is an alternative. That's just completely asinine.
Also, another side effect of replacing this specific technology is that you destroy many more jobs than you create. Coal mining jobs are gone, railway jobs are gone, power plant jobs are gone, environmental testing jobs are gone and they're all replaced by manpower unintensive jobs that can be run by a few people in a control room. You're going to cause massive unemployment. But hey, thinking about the small picture is way more impressive than thinking about all the big picture ramifications.
Why don't you wait till we have perpetual droughts where none of your crops will grow, have flooding which destroys houses and cause land slides displacing millions of people, as well as destroying the few crops we do manage to grow. Where major dust storms are a regular occurrence and wild fires burn for 10 months of the year. Where hurricanes that make Katrina look like a bad storm hit places like New York and into Canada on a regular basis. Where coastal cities and towns have to build massive dykes or abandon millions of homes. Where the Himalayan glaciers melt denying a water source to over a billion people, Where the ocean currents shut down causing Northern Europe to freeze over in a mini ice age. Where mass extinction of plant and animal life causes a massive disruption to the food chain where plagues of biblical proportion are an annual occurrence.
Yes, I can definitely see how Jimbo's choo choo is more important.
Go troll elsewhere, you have brought nothing to the conversation and I doubt you will even bother reading the rest of the thread to grasp what we're talking about.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-22 09:38:37)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who said anything about destroying any industry?JohnG@lt wrote:
Btw, this is exactly why you don't destroy an industry like coal power plants before you have viable replacement technology. Not only does it need to be planned and tested thoroughly, it needs to be built and online before you even think about replacement. You don't completely destroy an industry before there is an alternative. That's just completely asinine.
Carbon trading or whatever is simply a way of encouraging environmentally inefficient industries to wind down and more efficient industries to gear up. Its not that complex.
Potentially yes, same as continuing to use DDT, CFCs or other environmental toxins could have had similarly catastrophic effects.Right. All that stuff is going to come about if we don't stop burning carbon RIGHT NOW. THIS VERY FUCKING SECOND OR THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!!!!
He's not the troll here. Apart from 'OMG Al Gore's a douchebag communist' you don't really have an argument.Go troll elsewhere, you have brought nothing to the conversation and I doubt you will even bother reading the rest of the thread to grasp what we're talking about.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-22 15:00:09)
Fuck Israel
Industries which do not exist yet, unless you're talking about nuclear power.Dilbert_X wrote:
Who said anything about destroying any industry?JohnG@lt wrote:
Btw, this is exactly why you don't destroy an industry like coal power plants before you have viable replacement technology. Not only does it need to be planned and tested thoroughly, it needs to be built and online before you even think about replacement. You don't completely destroy an industry before there is an alternative. That's just completely asinine.
Carbon trading or whatever is simply a way of encouraging environmentally inefficient industries to wind down and more efficient industries to gear up. Its not that complex.
It snows here and it gets dark at 4:30 PM from late October onward, couple that with no realistic way to store the energy and solar is not worth the investment, nor is it truly viable.
There is no potential for geothermal energy production here because we sit on very hard granite bedrock that would require very expensive investment for very limited results.
Wind is also not viable here. Land is too expensive and the area is too built up. There's also a lot of NIMBYism in that people don't want turbines within view of their homes because they are afraid it will lower their property values.
Cold fusion? Doesn't exist.
So, please tell me what a tax, like what the carbon exchange will be, will do in producing 'green' electricity production when the technology does not currently exist. Force companies to invest? Yeah, ok. It took us ten thousand years to figure out how to harness electricity but you expect overnight results on finding new ways to generate it. Good luck with that.
Right. Did I ever say the EPA was bad or that it didn't protect us from stuff like this? When the item in question is proven to do things like make the shells of eagle eggs thinner so they break, or cause a hole in the ozone layer then yes, feel free to ban them. Carbon emissions haven't been proven to do jack shit no matter how much you want them to. The sample size of the data is far too small to make such sweeping conclusions about such a global issue.Dilbert_X wrote:
Potentially yes, same as continuing to use DDT, CFCs or other environmental toxins could have had similarly catastrophic effects.Right. All that stuff is going to come about if we don't stop burning carbon RIGHT NOW. THIS VERY FUCKING SECOND OR THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!!!!
No, he's the very definition of a troll and you're borderline yourself. He jumped in the thread, made assumptions to stir the pot and then left without another word. You make sweeping pronouncements on things you do not understand but at least you attempt to debate them, even if it makes you look like the left wing version of a NASCAR redneck.Dilbert_X wrote:
He's not the troll here. Apart from 'OMG Al Gore's a douchebag communist' you don't really have an argument.Go troll elsewhere, you have brought nothing to the conversation and I doubt you will even bother reading the rest of the thread to grasp what we're talking about.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It will encourage people to develop the technology, move to areas where renewable energy is available or find ways of delivering renewable energy to areas where it isn't. The alternative is to sit idly doing nothing.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, please tell me what a tax, like what the carbon exchange will be, will do in producing 'green' electricity production when the technology does not currently exist.
No, once electricity was discovered it took a few decades to harness it.Yeah, ok. It took us ten thousand years to figure out how to harness electricity but you expect overnight results on finding new ways to generate it.
There are hundreds of thousands of years of ice-core data, many millions of years of other data - feel free to ignore it if you like.Carbon emissions haven't been proven to do jack shit no matter how much you want them to. The sample size of the data is far too small to make such sweeping conclusions about such a global issue.
There is no absolute 100% proof, although I'd say its nearly as good as, but still its prudent to deal with it.
Its in everyones interests to start the work before peak oil hits rather than after.
See above. Just because you're ignorant of the science doesn't mean its wrong.You make sweeping pronouncements on things you do not understand
Fuck Israel
John, I dont know much about where you live, but I assume its Queens NY ( from your sig thingy).JG wrote:
Not everyone lives in Australia. Solar wouldn't work here for half the year. Wind turbines and thermal don't work here either. This is why all of the current green technology you worship doesn't work.
Looking at a map of NY and Queens, you guys are really close to open ocean. Which would give you options for tidal energy, wave energy, and even wind energy. Theres a bit named "Breezy point" right near it, so there must be wind there.
I have included a map of Queens and NY, see if you can spot the area that can be used for renewables.
Despite what you say, theres pretty much always an option if you care to look.
Yep, they wanted to plant wind turbines offshore but it was shot down because people were afraid it would lower property values. An environmental group also protested their placement because they would kill migratory bats and birds where they wanted to place them...Burwhale wrote:
John, I dont know much about where you live, but I assume its Queens NY ( from your sig thingy).JG wrote:
Not everyone lives in Australia. Solar wouldn't work here for half the year. Wind turbines and thermal don't work here either. This is why all of the current green technology you worship doesn't work.
Looking at a map of NY and Queens, you guys are really close to open ocean. Which would give you options for tidal energy, wave energy, and even wind energy. Theres a bit named "Breezy point" right near it, so there must be wind there.
I have included a map of Queens and NY, see if you can spot the area that can be used for renewables.
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49 … queens.jpg
Despite what you say, theres pretty much always an option if you care to look.
The place you marked is also right in the middle of a MAJOR shipping lane coming into Manhattan and Sandy Hook, NJ
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-11-23 05:24:02)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah that's why I'm not going to be joining Greenpeace any time soon. Their policy on nuclear power is another one, I actually asked a former high-ranking member about it and his response was "yeah we uh thought about it and decided against it" yeah, sure.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yep, they wanted to plant wind turbines offshore but it was shot down because people were afraid it would lower property values. An environmental group also protested their placement because they would kill migratory bats and birds where they wanted to place them...Burwhale wrote:
John, I dont know much about where you live, but I assume its Queens NY ( from your sig thingy).JG wrote:
Not everyone lives in Australia. Solar wouldn't work here for half the year. Wind turbines and thermal don't work here either. This is why all of the current green technology you worship doesn't work.
Looking at a map of NY and Queens, you guys are really close to open ocean. Which would give you options for tidal energy, wave energy, and even wind energy. Theres a bit named "Breezy point" right near it, so there must be wind there.
I have included a map of Queens and NY, see if you can spot the area that can be used for renewables.
http://i360.photobucket.com/albums/oo49 … queens.jpg
Despite what you say, theres pretty much always an option if you care to look.
Welp.The place you marked is also right in the middle of a MAJOR shipping lane coming into Manhattan and Sandy Hook, NJ
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yeah , I cant excuse so called "environmental groups that complain about bird kill etc, then whinge about Climate change. Assholes.JG wrote:
Yep, they wanted to plant wind turbines offshore but it was shot down because people were afraid it would lower property values. An environmental group also protested their placement because they would kill migratory bats and birds where they wanted to place them...
The place you marked is also right in the middle of a MAJOR shipping lane coming into Manhattan and Sandy Hook, NJ
As for the shipping lane thing, look, you know you can fit renewables in that area , or an area close to there without interfering with shipping. Container ships wouldnt have to slalom between wind turbines.
They've tried twice. It's been shot down both times by the combined fury of property owners worried about values, environmentalists worried about bats and birds, fishermen worried that they will have restricted waters to fish in or that the turbines will kill off fish, beach goers (because all of Long Island's south shore is dotted with heavily used beaches) didn't want to see the turbines from the beach, and then the rest bitched about the cost. Gotta understand that we're all still paying for a nuclear power plant that was built on the east end of Long Island and that was subsequently never used because people went all NIMBY on it and protested it to death (environmentalists preferred coal in the 70s-80s I guess) just after it was completed. So, they're going to be ultra cautious before ever trying anything again...Burwhale wrote:
Yeah , I cant excuse so called "environmental groups that complain about bird kill etc, then whinge about Climate change. Assholes.JG wrote:
Yep, they wanted to plant wind turbines offshore but it was shot down because people were afraid it would lower property values. An environmental group also protested their placement because they would kill migratory bats and birds where they wanted to place them...
The place you marked is also right in the middle of a MAJOR shipping lane coming into Manhattan and Sandy Hook, NJ
As for the shipping lane thing, look, you know you can fit renewables in that area , or an area close to there without interfering with shipping. Container ships wouldnt have to slalom between wind turbines.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
john those are what we call professional complainers
those turbines would be great here..... until one of the ice flows came along and fucked them all up anyway
those turbines would be great here..... until one of the ice flows came along and fucked them all up anyway
Free energy sounds wise any way you cut it. Government subsidized or not.Dilbert_X wrote:
All of which receive huge govt subsidies here.Kmarion wrote:
That sounds like wise economical choices.Spark wrote:
Solar panels (feed in tarriff helps) + solar water heating + energy efficiency + public transport. I do my bit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not really following the arguments here but just to let you know that wind power has been supplying about 30% of the entire system demand of the Republic of Ireland for the past two weeks running. Obviously it can't be relied upon but over the course of a year it makes for a significant reduction in the amount of finite and polluting fuel resources we burn.
And as to the reliability of wind energy: we can store this energy with technology long in existence but it will take money - pumped storage plant. Lake at the bottom of a mountain, reservoir at the top - pump water up when the wind is blowing, spill it through turbines when the wind isn't. The only problem is you're gonna need a shit load of mountains (artificial or otherwise).
Turlough Hill, Ireland:
And as to the reliability of wind energy: we can store this energy with technology long in existence but it will take money - pumped storage plant. Lake at the bottom of a mountain, reservoir at the top - pump water up when the wind is blowing, spill it through turbines when the wind isn't. The only problem is you're gonna need a shit load of mountains (artificial or otherwise).
Turlough Hill, Ireland:
That looks bloody expensive and difficult as you say if you don't have mountains, and we don't have too many. I've heard ammonia splitting could fix that but given the chemistry of the process behind (essentially Haber in reverse) I have doubts as to the viability of that.CameronPoe wrote:
Not really following the arguments here but just to let you know that wind power has been supplying about 30% of the entire system demand of the Republic of Ireland for the past two weeks running. Obviously it can't be relied upon but over the course of a year it makes for a significant reduction in the amount of finite and polluting fuel resources we burn.
And as to the reliability of wind energy: we can store this energy with technology long in existence but it will take money - pumped storage plant. Lake at the bottom of a mountain, reservoir at the top - pump water up when the wind is blowing, spill it through turbines when the wind isn't. The only problem is you're gonna need a shit load of mountains (artificial or otherwise).
Turlough Hill, Ireland:
http://www-cenerg.cma.fr/more-care/acti … oirs_w.jpg
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Um... The Great Dividing Range...?Spark wrote:
That looks bloody expensive and difficult as you say if you don't have mountains, and we don't have too many.
Tell that to Perth.AussieReaper wrote:
Um... The Great Dividing Range...?Spark wrote:
That looks bloody expensive and difficult as you say if you don't have mountains, and we don't have too many.
And those are hills, not mountains.
Last edited by Spark (2009-11-25 03:13:37)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
No, you're wrong, we should stick with coal, anyone who says different is a Marxist who wants to kill freedom.Kmarion wrote:
Free energy sounds wise any way you cut it. Government subsidized or not.
Fuck Israel