Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

1. Robin Guenier says:

   12/11/2009 at 12:02 pm

   One reason I characterised Rudd’s speech as “unwise” is that it has prompted some excellent responses that can only further the cause he so vehemently opposes. One was the splendid Joanne Nova tirade (see 8140) and I link to two more at 8141. Here’s yet another (by Marc Morano) – arguably the best of all.
2. Robin Guenier says:

   12/11/2009 at 12:07 pm

   Here’s another comment on Rudd’s speech – by Roger Pielke Jr. A quotation:

   Imagine if George W. Bush had given this same speech in 2003 but about people who deny the merits of his desired policy of going to war in Iraq. There would have been national and international outrage, and rightfully so.

   .
3. tempterrain says:

   12/11/2009 at 2:10 pm

   I’m sure Kevin Rudd will be grateful for your political advice but he seems to be doing OK without it. He’s had a few problems with public opinion over asylum seekers recently but nevertheless the Australian newspaper has just reported:

   “In better news for the Government, Kevin Rudd was still way ahead of Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull as Australia’s preferred prime minister, 63 per cent to 19 per cent.”

   The UK’s Gordon Brown might want to ask him how its done. So it just goes to show that straight talking on climate change doesn’t have to be electorally unpopular.
4. TonyN says:

   12/11/2009 at 2:55 pm

   Peter M:

   Are you surt that quote is from The Australian? Google didn’t seem to be able to find it for me, but it did find this, datelined 2nd Nov 2009:

   PUBLIC support for the Kevin Rudd government has collapsed by seven percentage points in two-party preferred terms in the past fortnight.

   But Kevin Rudd retains a commanding lead as preferred prime minister, leading Malcolm Turnbull by a margin of 63 per cent to 19 per cent.

   The results come in an Newspoll conducted exclusively for The Australian at the weekend and to be published in tomorrow’s edition of The Australian.

   The poll, taken after a fortnight of heavy public debate about a surge in asylum-seekers heading for Australia, found Labor on 52 per cent support in two-party preferred terms – down seven percentage points form a Newspoll taken a fortnight ago.

   The Coalition was on 48 per cent – up seven percentage points.

   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-slips-badly-newspoll/story-e6frg6n6-1225793682675

   Perhaps Rudd and Brown will have an opportunity to to cry on each others shoulders when they meet up at Copenhagen next month.
5. Robin Guenier says:

   12/11/2009 at 3:36 pm

   PeterM: I didn’t ask you if Kevin Rudd was “doing OK“, I asked if you agreed (following the logic of your 8146) that his recent outburst against “deniers” “effectively excludes [him] from the scientific process” or even means he must be “dismissed as a … right wing nutter“. Perhaps you’d be good enough to answer that. Thanks.
6. Robin Guenier says:

   12/11/2009 at 3:59 pm

   Re my new “green” friends (see 8143), here’s the text of an email I sent to some of them (following up on our discussion on Tuesday):

   I enjoyed our discussion on Tuesday evening – we should continue sometime.

   Basically, my motivation in all this is to make what contribution I can to the world my grandchildren will inherit – with particular concern about the environment and especial concern about world poverty. I imagine you both share that motivation. But our perspectives are utterly different: I think that the man-made dangerous climate change hypothesis is, in effect, a baseless and dangerous scare.

   To avoid any misunderstanding of my position, I should clarify three things: (1) I accept there is no doubt that temperatures have risen in recent years – indeed, for about 250 years (since the worst of the Little Ice Age), they’ve been rising at a rate of around (a wholly unthreatening) 0.5 deg.C; (2) I accept also that, in recent years, CO2 levels have risen markedly (and especially since the end of WW2 – see http://cdiac.ornl.gov); and (3) yes, the laws of physics show that additional CO2 warms the atmosphere. But, of course, on the latter point, so do many other natural things (solar, oceanic, atmospheric, cosmic etc.) – hence, for example, the marked warmings in 1860/1880 and 1910/1940 (see IPCC AR4 figure SPM 1) (and countless times before then in Earth’s history). Therefore, the first big question is, not whether man’s CO2 emissions contributed to the 1976/1998 warming (they probably did), but whether they, and not natural influences, were the main cause. And the second big question is whether, if man’s CO2 continue as now, they will cause dangerous climate change. And there’s the rub: there’s no peer-reviewed unambiguous empirical (real-world, not theoretical) evidence (evidence that is accessible to independent researchers) supporting an affirmative answer to either question. Search IPCC AR4 and you’ll find no reference to any such evidence.

   The hypothesis is therefore interesting, but unverified.

   Yet, on the basis of that unverified hypothesis, it is proposed that we inflict yet further damage on our already shattered Western economies, with unwelcome consequences for our local environments – but, in particular, seriously damaging the third world. More expensive energy (an inevitable consequence of CO2 restriction) would mean that even more already desperately poor people would be unable to access clean water, fresh food, better health care, better education, etc, etc … Almost everything they need would cost more. Is it really wise to allow this (and, for example, the introduction of biofuels) for the sake of an unverified theory? Very frankly, I consider it wholly irresponsible – even cruel.

   Of course, one day fossil fuels will run out (but not, I suggest, for a long time – see below). But, by far, the best solution to that will be the technological development that would be the inevitable consequence of vibrant and innovative economies. To deliberately undermine those economies in an unnecessary attempt to “save the world” would, therefore, be seriously counter-productive.

   Lastly – and as I pointed out on Wednesday – it’s interesting that China and India (and other “developing” economies) fully understand this. (See for example this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202452.html.) Of course, they express diplomatic “green” rhetoric, but they have no intention of agreeing to emission cuts that would endanger their economic growth (making Western efforts even more pointless). And, fortunately for them, millions of the world’s poorest people will be the direct beneficiaries of their governments’ good sense. And that, in particular, means burning coal, of which both China and India have vast reserves. They are taking action to clean up their (now very dirty – from sulphur, particulates, etc) coal use – although, as they understand that CO2 is neither dirty nor a global risk, they are unlikely to be much concerned about costly carbon sequestration.

   Re “peak oil”, I suggest you read an article published recently in Scientific American (October 2009, Vol 301, No 4). There’s a summary in the Wall Street Journal dated 4 November: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574470700973579402.html.

   I’ll end (you’ll be glad to hear) with a quotation from Richard Lindzen (Professor of Meteorology, MIT):

   “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”

   I hope I may possibly have persuaded you at least to think again about all this.

   Best wishes

   Robin Guenier

   PS: you asked for a reference to the paper I mentioned about Indian scientists questioning the commonly held view that the recent retreat of Himalayan glaciers is the result of (man-made) global warming. It’s here: http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
7. manacker says:

   12/11/2009 at 7:28 pm

   Hi Peter

   You wrote (8145) of the recent Lindzen and Choi study,

   “I did take a look at Lindzen’s paper and of course it gives the “right answer” as far as you’re concerned so you are more than happy to accept it. However, if it is right, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Or, what I think you’d like to think it means:-) It only applies to tropical regions where the additional warming effect from GHGs is generally acknowledged to be lower anyway.”

   Wrong, Peter. The empirical data derived from the ERBE physical observations showed that total net outgoing (SW + LW) radiation over the tropics increases with surface temperature, rather than decreases (as assumed by all the IPCC model simulations).

   A major part of this was caused by an observed increase in the outgoing SW radiation with warming.

   This results in a strongly negative total net feedback with warming, and a calculated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 0.5°C.

   Adjusting this for the entire planet (not only the vast tropical regions, where most of the incoming SW radiation occurs) results in a global 2xCO2 impact of 0.7°C.

   As a result, there is no real threat from anthropogenic greenhouse warming as projected by the model simulations.

   That is “what it means”, Peter, like it or not!

   I would have though that you would be happy to hear such good news, but somehow you are still pessimistically awaiting a virtual man-made doomsday that will never happen.

   Max
8. manacker says:

   12/11/2009 at 7:52 pm

   Hi Peter,

   You seemed offended by the word “scam” when you wrote to Robin:

   Correct me if I’m wrong but I seem to remember that previously you’d been keen to distance yourself from those who use words like “hoax” or “scam”.

   You are quite right , of course, it’s just a nonsense to think the scientific community are engaged in a big con trick. It is possible that they may be wrong but to engage in such insults effectively excludes you all from the scientific process, and you are just dismissed as a bunch of right wing nutters

   So, why then do you say that Max is being “optimistic” in saying “the bubble will soon burst and the AGW scare will have been exposed as a scam”.

   Yes, the “AGW scare” is a “scam”. By that I am referring to the misuse of the computer outputs by politicians to “scare” the populace into supporting a carbon tax bill. This fear mongering to support a political agenda is a “scam” in the true sense of the word (check your PM Rudd for a practical example).

   The “scientific processes” (as you call the exaggerated computer simulations and alarming IPCC reports) are being used to support this “scam”, but are not necessarily an inherent part of the “scam”, itself, in my opinion, insofar as he “scientists” (and computer nerds involved) may actually believe in the validity of their computer simulations.

   [Brute may have a different opinion on this.]

   Check Peter Taylor for his reference to a collusion of interests. It is a very succinct and accurate analysis of what is going on. Are the scientists innocently playing into the hands of power-seeking politicians and profit-seeking corporate executives, all in the name of “saving the planet”? Let’s assume that this is the case in most instances.

   But I will stay with calling the misuse of the computer outputs by politicians to frighten the populace into supporting a carbon tax bill a “scam” (because that is exactly what it is).

   Max
9. manacker says:

   12/11/2009 at 8:01 pm

   Hi Peter,

   You wrote:

   Thye IPCC don’t just listen to those who give them the “right answer” of course.

   Ho, ho! I am afraid you are a bit naive and not 100% correct on that statement. There are several examples where IPCC ignored, rejected or failed to accept as correct scientific reports, which did not support the premise of AGW.

   These cover almost all of the IPCC claims.

   The IPCC theme song seems to have been that old tune, “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative…”

   Max
10. manacker says:

    12/11/2009 at 8:09 pm

    Hi Peter,

    You apparently missed (8145) this part of the Lindzen and Choi conclusion on 2xCO2 climate sensitivity based on the empirical ERBE data:

    Finally, it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics. Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 [0.7°C] rather than 1/2 [0.5°C] of the non-feedback value [1°C]. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.

    Got it now?

    Max
11. TonyN says:

    12/11/2009 at 9:31 pm

    No doubt there will be comments about the Plimer lecture tomorrow. I’ve put up a new thread for these here:

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=233
    or
    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=234

    So no discussion of the Plimer lecture on this thread please.
12. manacker says:

    12/11/2009 at 9:41 pm

    Robin (8156)

    Excellent summary.

    If your “green friends” are logical thinkers, they may take note and check out some of the AGW claims more closely.

    If they are religious “believers” in AGW, they will adhere to their religious belief and consider you a “right wing nutter” (as Peter puts it) for daring to question this belief.

    Max
13. Brute says:

    13/11/2009 at 1:27 am

    The “scientific processes” (as you call the exaggerated computer simulations and alarming IPCC reports) are being used to support this “scam”, but are not necessarily an inherent part of the “scam”, itself, in my opinion, insofar as he “scientists” (and computer nerds involved) may actually believe in the validity of their computer simulations.

    Max,
    We need a psychiatrist to chime in here. I believe there are different personality types that believe in the AGW mumbo-jumbo for different reasons.

    I believe that there are people that absolutely know, deep in their psyche that the “scientific” evidence is a load of Bull; however, publicly support the premise either for financial gain or because the proposed remedies fit their political ideology perfectly.

    There’s another group that support the premise because simply because their political opposite do not (which fits into the above group).

    There are those that are simply lazy and believe anything that they’re told to believe………Many people are simply “followers”. They are obsessively self conscience and seek approval from the larger group in an effort to “fit in” and latch onto the AGW “cause” because everybody else does.

    May people shun organized religion because they deem themselves to be “chic” or “avant garde” and turn to “environmentalism” to fill the void in their lives.

    There are others that are mad at the world and seek to blame their personal failures on someone/something. AGW gives them the excuse to blame [insert corporate evildoer here].

    If I had the time (and a degree in psychology) I’d try to sort them all out.

    One observation that I have made is that (generally) politically left leaning individuals also swallow the AWG nonsense hook line and sinker. They’re in love with the “remedies” as long as they aren’t applied to themselves. These are generally weak willed people that are seeking a shoulder to cry on and avoid taking responsibility for themselves……the “entitlement” crowd.

    Me? I’m making buckets of money relieving guilt ridden Leftists of their money (which is one reason that I post anonymously).

    I don’t publicly state my views……(mixing business and politics is bad business) and in fairness to myself, my products and solutions save my clients money with an ROI of (normally) one year.

    I’ll have to ask my psychiatrist friend about these gullible personality types and the character defects that drive people to believe in global warming.
14. manacker says:

    13/11/2009 at 2:59 am

    Hi Brute

    Thanks for your analysis.

    I’m no psychiatrist either, so I can only guess what drives the AGW-believers to their faith.

    It is clear to me that it is not based upon reason. For when a new scientific study based on actual empirical data shows that there is no real threat from AGW due to a natural regulation of our climate that prevents runaway warming (Lindzen and Choi, 2009), a reasonable person would be relieved and happy.

    But the AGW-faithful either simply stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the good news never happened or try to interpret the good news so that it is really bad news.

    I believe there is a doomsday cult mentality here. This is nothing new, of course. There have been doomsday cults for thousands of years. Most of these predict the “end of the world” with “human guilt” as the underlying reason for our demise. This one is no different.

    Of course these doomsday predictions have invariably been wrong, because doomsday has never arrived. But the followers of each new doomsday cult are absolutely certain that “this time it’s real”.

    In today’s AGW case there is not only a doomsday cult in action, but hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money at work, with the prospect of even higher sums for politicians to shuffle around if a global carbon tax (direct or indirect) is implemented. Not only do the politicians smell the power that this will bring them, but corporate executives also smell the prospect of government subsidies and profits to be made from the craze. And the scientists do their “climate change studies” with taxpayer funding provided by the politicians, occasionally releasing a bit of alarming news to an eager press.

    These are those that hope to profit from the AGW craze. No psychological study is required for these individuals, since they are driven by the desire for power and/or financial gain. They are not necessarily doomsdayers themselves, but they know the value of scaremongering to frighten a gullible public into supporting their agenda.

    Max
15. Brute says:

    13/11/2009 at 3:58 am

    Max,

    Yes, a variety of Neurosis involved.

    Seriously, I’m going to talk to my friend and do some research in an attempt to catagorize the AGW believer personality types.

    For instance….I don’t believe your average, run of the mill, Harmless Sky AGW believer is motivated by money……more the socialist, ideological, political, dreamer, revolutionary type…….the “anti-establishment” malcontent…..
16. tempterrain says:

    13/11/2009 at 9:21 am

    Robin,

    Kevin Rudd routinely engages in the sort of robust political language which probably wouldn’t go down too well in, say, the chambers of the Royal Society. However, its not his or any politician’s job to get directly involved in the scientific process. Unless, perhaps, they happen to possess specific knowledge themselves but I can’t think of any examples right now. Certainly not Kevin Rudd.

    Their role is to listen to the best scientific advice possible on environmental issues, which in Australia comes from the CSIRO not industry pressure groups like the so called IPA. He’s certainly listening to them more attentively than the previous Australian government but whether it is going to be translated into real action remains to be seen.
17. tempterrain says:

    13/11/2009 at 9:49 am

    Max,

    Lindzen seems to refer to a previous paper by himself to justify his ‘factor of two’. If he write another couple of papers he can then, of course, have three references to support his ‘factor of two’. It really just a bit of incestuous handwaving with little to support it.

    Empirical measurements (you guys are always asking for that) show that temperature anomalies well in excess of the 0.7 deg figure mentioned by Lindzen in many regions. It the thermal inertia of the oceans that is slowing down the warming elsewhere.

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/temperature-records/Fig1-2008gmt.gif
18. Robin Guenier says:

    13/11/2009 at 10:20 am

    Re 8156, I got an answer from my main addressee (the Green Party candidate). Here’s a (big) extract:

    What you said was very interesting, and reminds me that it’s a massive and complex subject. I don’t expect to change your mind either, but a couple of points come up from your email.

    I’m no scientist, but I’m not sure how you would get empirical evidence for a prediction of a future event, and I guess it would also be very hard to get empirical evidence between the different sources of CO2 emitted in one historical period. But on the science, I tend to go along with the idea that theory is given credence by testing, peer review and the passing of time, all of which point to me being roughly right and you being roughly wrong.

    On the threat to the poor, in general terms it is the high-consuming rich that need to change their ways, and it is in our interest to help the poor develop sustainably, or they will be coming over to get us. There is no room and no oil for 6 billion people to be driving cars, flying everywhere and watching plasma TVs.

    I’m actually more interested in the much wider picture about the need for humans to live more sustainably. There’s more coming in about this all the time. On Peak Oil, for example, see this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/10/peak-oil-fear-economic-establishment
    (I know it’s in the Guardian, but what can you do!)

    What attracts me to Green politics is the long-term thinking that links everything together with the aim of creating a sustainable society – social justice, equality, ‘happiness growth’ over economic growth and so on. Loads of readable stuff, high level and detailed, at http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies. I don’t agree with you that reducing our footprint on the world need damage our economy or the poor. That’s what the current system is doing, and will do so as it continues to demand “growth” at the expense of everything else. If we do it right, we’ll lead happier, more fulfilled lives, they’ll be less inequality and so less social ills. They’ll be room for everyone and resources to support them.

    Probably sounds pretty utopian, or just daft, to you, but the current system, which is supposed to be so wonderful, seems pretty bleak and threatening to me. This is the stuff that motivates me to campaign for change (in my case, locally and to a lesser extent in the wider world) and try to get people to vote for it.

    As you can see, he’s obviously a decent person. He does not I suggest, Brute, really fit any of your categories: he’s a genuine AGW believer, he’s not lazy or aggressively self-conscious, I don’t think he’s filling a void in his life or is a personal failure and I’m sure he’s not “in love with the “remedies” as long as they aren’t applied to [himself]”.

    Here’s my reply:

    Yes, man-made climate change is massive and complex subject. Three observations on your comments: (1) you get empirical evidence re predictions by verifying the assumptions on which those predictions are based – e.g. claimed “feedback” effects; (2) there is a lot of empirical (from instrumental measurement) evidence of CO2 emitted in recent times – in pre-industrial times it comes partly from so-called “proxy” sources but also from direct evidence such as, for example, ice cores – and from the latter we know e.g. that, in prehistoric times, CO2 levels have been far higher than they are today (without runaway warming); and (3) I wholly accept that “theory is given credence by testing, peer review and the passing of time” (well put) but the problem is that the dangerous man-made climate change theory fails the test – can you refer me to one peer reviewed study that, based on empirical evidence, demonstrates that, if man continues to emit CO2 at present rates, the result will be dangerous climate change? I think not. A fourth observation (sorry): you seem to be overlooking the inconvenient truth that the “developing” economies (China, India etc.), plus e.g. Russia, Iran, Saudi etc, already emitting considerably more CO2 than the “developed” world, have no serious intention of changing. These, Simon, are the economies that demand “growth” today.

    As for Madeleine Bunting’s piece in the Guardian re “peak oil”, well I suggest my Scientific American reference has more substance – did you read it? You should. At least you must concede that the matter is uncertain. In any case, don’t forget (a) the expected massive worldwide extension of nuclear power (which makes me nervous – why swap the uncertainty of dangerous fossil fuels for the certainty of radioactive waste?) and (b) the world’s huge coal reserves, which, once the sulphur, particulates etc. (i.e. unlike CO2 the real pollutants) are “scrubbed” out, don’t make me nervous.

    As for the Green Party – well, it all sounds very agreeable. But I’d be more impressed if you didn’t claim unambiguously that “climate change remains the most serious challenge we face … our very existence may be at stake”, asserting that we “must take urgent action now to move to a low or zero carbon economy”. Really? All that that implies (not least for the poor) on the basis of an unverified hypothesis – when most of the world is doing nothing? I suggest you’ve got this terribly wrong.

    Perhaps we’ll have an opportunity to discuss all this another time. I hope so.
19. Robin Guenier says:

    13/11/2009 at 10:41 am

    PeterM: so you think that, although it’s OK for Kevin Rudd to indulge in a stream of absurdly insulting invective (see my 8148 for some choice examples), it’s seriously wrong for Max (not “directly involved in the scientific process” either) to have made the relatively mild prediction that “the AGW scare will have been exposed as a scam” – so wrong indeed that he should be “just dismissed as [one of] a bunch of right wing nutters”.

    Why?
20. tempterrain says:

    13/11/2009 at 11:52 am

    Robin,

    You have to distinguish the political from the scientific aspect on AGW. Or, Climate change as President Bush and his advisors decided to rename it.

    Scientists are much more polite to each other than politicians, and different social mores apply in the two arenas. I’m not sure just exactly what Kevin Rudd said that you considered too vitriolic, or “absurdly insulting invective”, as you put it, but you need to get over it – maybe grow a thicker skin!

    On the other hand, you aren’t going to be able to be taken seriously by calling out scientists for being part of a scam and a conspiracy. You may think it unfair but ‘them’s the rules’!
21. Robin Guenier says:

    13/11/2009 at 12:28 pm

    Peter: first, let’s get one thing clear. I do not (and never have) call “out scientists for being part of a scam and a conspiracy”. I know you wish I had – but I haven’t. Get used to it.

    As for Rudd, how about “bald-faced denial of global scientific, economic and environmental reality” and “utterly contemptuous towards our children’s interest in the future”? He too was talking about scientists. So, tell me, if you think that’s OK, why Max’s mild prediction that “the AGW scare will have been exposed as a scam” is so unacceptable that he should be “just dismissed as [one of] a bunch of right wing nutters”? Thanks.
22. Brute says:

    13/11/2009 at 12:33 pm

    Pete,

    A hypothetical situation……

    You’ve purchased a new automobile.

    The manufacturer’s estimate is that the car will travel 400 miles on a tank of gas.

    Do you rely on the estimate or gasoline gauge when driving?
23. tempterrain says:

    13/11/2009 at 12:39 pm

    Robin,

    To people like Brute, there isn’t much difference between those on the left of the political spectrum and the Greens but that’s quite an uninformed view.

    Its not too far a step for Green politics to become Malthusian. The attitude of the left to Malthus has probably been defined by Marx who described Malthusianism as an ‘lampoon on the human race’.

    The most famous present day Malthusian is probably Prof Albert Bartlett. He does a pretty good job in these series of videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

    It is an argument which deserves serious study.
24. tempterrain says:

    13/11/2009 at 12:49 pm

    Robin,

    You say “He {Kevin Rudd] too was talking about scientists.” Was he?

    I took him to mean more the sort of people who contribute to various climate change denialist blogs with “their own personal intuitions, their own personal prejudices and their deeply ingrained political prejudices and using logic that belongs in a casino, not a science lab”.

    Sounds like he’s got it about right!
25. tempterrain says:

    13/11/2009 at 1:48 pm

    Brute,

    I’m not sure what you are getting at, but I might just say that I’ve never purchased a new vehicle.

    I’d like to say that it’s concern for the environment but you can get a perfectly good car, maybe a couple of years old, for half the price of a new one. I tend to keep them until they become unreliable, but that hasn’t happened yet with my present one even though its 15 years old and has clocked up nearly 200,000 km, and yes the petrol gauge still works and I look at it regularly

    Of course we seem to have it instilled in us that somehow we are, or should be, defined as people, by the sort of cars we drive. If that’s so I’m still a healthy 15 year old! But generally speaking I’d say that most people are brainwashed into an unthinking consumerism which isn’t healthy for either their bank balances or the environment.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.