Quote: @Skodin said:
wow, so there isn't one single point you can bring up about science? Not one?
You don't have to be "up on the subject" to discuss how heat works, how sunlight works, how gases work.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you aren't willing to debate, let alone answer the basic questions about the math/science?
@greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
why die on this hill filled with nothing but straw men? Do you not think that warming climates, disrupted weather patterns, agricultural losses, won't affect you?
I am much more afraid of the cooling that is happening around the planet, more afraid of the weakened poles, the messed up jet streams. Warm weather means more food production areas, so really the earth warming would be a plus. Too bad we are heading the other way.
But it isn't straw men to think that trusting in politicians and bureaucrats is a bad idea.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
just like those pushing for covid mandates for the general public not following those same mandates and ignoring precautions.
Yep, watch what the do and ignore their lying lips. They aren't afraid of covid, but they are afraid of the people not being afraid.
Quote: @Skodin said:
wow, so there isn't one single point you can bring up about science? Not one?
You don't have to be "up on the subject" to discuss how heat works, how sunlight works, how gases work.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you aren't willing to debate, let alone answer the basic questions about the math/science?
why die on this hill filled with nothing but straw men? Do you not think that warming climates, disrupted weather patterns, agricultural losses, won't affect you?
And I will go back to my "prove me wrong" on you wanting to debate. So far, I am way ahead.
cya
Quote: @Skodin said:
wow, so there isn't one single point you can bring up about science? Not one?
You don't have to be "up on the subject" to discuss how heat works, how sunlight works, how gases work.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you aren't willing to debate, let alone answer the basic questions about the math/science?
@greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
why die on this hill filled with nothing but straw men? Do you not think that warming climates, disrupted weather patterns, agricultural losses, won't affect you?
You aren't going to change anyone's mind on these types of things in today's world. Its not going to happen. Everything is up for grabs and that includes science. There is zero doubt the earth and climate is getting warmer. None. If you want to argue some people want to profit from it, sure ...that's fine. It doesn't change the facts of it: climate change is real. It's quantifiable.
Keep in mind some of these people believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
Quote: @"
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
As a scientist, I will tell you that science is NEVER settled. It's a politician's word...not a scientist's. Science is ever evolving. The scientific method demands rigorous debate of any and all scientific advancement to test the conclusion or to expand on the advancement. Lot's of scientific achievements have been disproven or modified over the years. Scientific conclusions like the healing power of ingesting mercury, etc have been proven clearly wrong. The 97% number you talk about...are those related to the UNCC...which is more a political action committee than a scientific body. If you question their "results", you're banished from the committee. The money flows to those that are pro climate change.
We simply don't have enough accurate weather and causal data to fully understand something as complex as the Climate because weather changes patterns all the time...and you need to separate short term weather events from climate variants. It wasn't too long ago the climate change crowd was talking about the upcoming mini ice age...turns out...it was just a cold spell.
Be a good shepherd of the environment...it's the only planet we have...but do it for the right reasons...and not the "settled science" of climate change.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ Skodin said:
wow, so there isn't one single point you can bring up about science? Not one?
You don't have to be "up on the subject" to discuss how heat works, how sunlight works, how gases work.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you aren't willing to debate, let alone answer the basic questions about the math/science?
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
why die on this hill filled with nothing but straw men? Do you not think that warming climates, disrupted weather patterns, agricultural losses, won't affect you?
You aren't going to change anyone's mind on these types of things in today's world. Its not going to happen. Everything is up for grabs and that includes science. There is zero doubt the earth and climate is getting warmer. None. If you want to argue some people want to profit from it, sure ...that's fine. It doesn't change the facts of it: climate change is real. It's quantifiable.
Keep in mind some of these people believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
i dont think you will get an argument from anybody that the climate isnt changing, some places warmer, some places colder, the weather is certainly changing, however where the discussion needs to be centered on is why, and more importantly what can honestly be done, not feel good shit that allows for massive profits for some, but real honest scientists giving recommendations based on actual science and not guided science that is constructed and financed to show desired results for those that are funding it.
I will never argue that we shouldnt be doing more to protect the planet, but when we have those crying the loudest for the massive measures being some of the biggest polluters... their concerns ring pretty hollow.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ Skodin said:
wow, so there isn't one single point you can bring up about science? Not one?
You don't have to be "up on the subject" to discuss how heat works, how sunlight works, how gases work.
Why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you aren't willing to debate, let alone answer the basic questions about the math/science?
@ greediron said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
My viewpoints are backed by mathematics and basic science common sense. White roofs vs black roofs have a lower need for cooling to maintain temperature, why?
If you understand how CO2 is sequestered versus how it gets released, you can put 2 and 2 together to realize the plus/minus of ghg gasses being released into the atmosphere.
I have one acre of trees/fauna/flora/biodiveristy that sequester carbon to grow (is this debatable?).
-I cut down all of those trees, with a loss of existing CO2 that could have been sequestered
Now I plant crops on that acre that do not store carbon (in this case into the ground) at the same rate an acre of trees
-I am still down the amount of CO2 being sequestered
Then I put ruminants on that acre to eat those grasses, using their stomach chambers as anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is released back into the atmosphere
-Now I am producing a gas Ch4 that is "thicker" in the atmosphere by the magnitude of 20x CO2
So I went from sequestering carbon per acre at a good rate to the complete opposite with no sequestration and significant amounts of GHG emissions in the form of CH4. Multiple that over millions of acres across the planet, what do you get, a much higher level of atmospheric gases tonnage trapping more heat on earth.
How do you believe the atmospheric science works? Do you not believe that heat is trapped by gasses creating a layer, sending heat back to earth?
Do you believe that black surfaces (or ocean surfaces) do not absorb more heat via sunlight at a higher rate than white surfaces?
Why do we have evidenced glacial retreat, decreased snow cover, shrinking ice sheets, rising water levels, warming water bodies, higher levels of ocean acidification?
How do you view all of the data from organizations like NASA and the meteorological society who depict the decreasing amount of white surfaces on this planet vs the growing number of black ones?
I am open to your answers on this because this is how the science works, this is how the math works.
if the science is settled, why do the experts prediction models keep failing to be accurate? ( not my original thought, i read it in an article a long time ago and it still holds true ) if the science was truly settled they would be able to say with more certainty what will happen when. Also there are plenty of scientist that have been willing to call bull shit, but they are just wing nuts, nevermind that a lot of them have been studying the climate and weather before many of the so called experts now were even born.
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
i dont have to be completely up on a subject to be able to have an informed opinion and I am not going to try and debate this with you. I can tell you that the bull shit policies are not about saving the planet as much as they are about lining somebodies pockets, quite often at the expense of those who cant afford to do a damn thing about. you can spout all you want, but its not going to change the fact that your position is not one of settled science, any more than I can say with certainty that my position is 100% factual based.
One just has to look at the circumstantial evidence, those that profit from the BS regulations and propaganda don't believe it. Otherwise they wouldn't buy beach front mansions and fly everywhere in fuel guzzling private jets.
why die on this hill filled with nothing but straw men? Do you not think that warming climates, disrupted weather patterns, agricultural losses, won't affect you?
You aren't going to change anyone's mind on these types of things in today's world. Its not going to happen. Everything is up for grabs and that includes science. There is zero doubt the earth and climate is getting warmer. None. If you want to argue some people want to profit from it, sure ...that's fine. It doesn't change the facts of it: climate change is real. It's quantifiable.
Keep in mind some of these people believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
i dont think you will get an argument from anybody that the climate isnt changing, some places warmer, some places colder, the weather is certainly changing, however where the discussion needs to be centered on is why, and more importantly what can honestly be done, not feel good shit that allows for massive profits for some, but real honest scientists giving recommendations based on actual science and not guided science that is constructed and financed to show desired results for those that are funding it.
I will never argue that we shouldnt be doing more to protect the planet, but when we have those crying the loudest for the massive measures being some of the biggest polluters... their concerns ring pretty hollow.
exactly. I pick up trash when I am out on the river. We grew up depending on the land so we learned to use it and take care of it. Just tired of all the empty talk from the empty suits telling us what we should be doing while they do the opposite.
Quote: @badgervike said:
@"
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
As a scientist, I will tell you that science is NEVER settled. It's a politician's word...not a scientist's. Science is ever evolving. The scientific method demands rigorous debate of any and all scientific advancement to test the conclusion or to expand on the advancement. Lot's of scientific achievements have been disproven or modified over the years. Scientific conclusions like the healing power of ingesting mercury, etc have been proven clearly wrong. The 97% number you talk about...are those related to the UNCC...which is more a political action committee than a scientific body. If you question their "results", you're banished from the committee. The money flows to those that are pro climate change.
We simply don't have enough accurate weather and causal data to fully understand something as complex as the Climate because weather changes patterns all the time...and you need to separate short term weather events from climate variants. It wasn't too long ago the climate change crowd was talking about the upcoming mini ice age...turns out...it was just a cold spell.
Be a good shepherd of the environment...it's the only planet we have...but do it for the right reasons...and not the "settled science" of climate change.
I have a couple of issues with your statements, first is that "the money flows to those that are pro climate change", the trend has just been the opposite especially the last few years. My wife's funding for climate research involving insect and crop disease was cut off under the past last administration, along with many other research efforts across the country. I also have a nephew who is a geophysicist with similar experiences. I can only give you second hand anecdotal accounts from her, she writes the grants, I can only share my experience setting up CR10 data loggers . I let my wife read what you had written. She said it is her belief that most of the money is coming from private entities, like what happened with cancer research and the the tobacco industry. She pointed me to this article, you can't follow private money, just public.
Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years agoA
new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before
it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...years-ago/
If you are waiting for causal data we will need a control planet first off. So we are left with correlation (like smoking and its health impacts). But isn't climate change more about the effects, like flooding, fires and changing weather patterns, and its impact on biological organisms, not just weather data?
Quote: @Skodin said:
The whole world outside of oil and gas shareholders understand the impact of rising levels of CO2, it is settled science, this isn't debatable.
I can't debate you, or the "settled science" of climate change.
Prof. Judith Curry (real bona fides) can, tho. ^^
Quote: @Skodin said:
Sure and gravity is still just a theory.
Ok, wow.
Comparing the science behind the laws of gravity to "AGW-climate change"? Is there even a solid unifying climate change theory amongst the 97%'ers?
You make some fair points on this subject, but c'mon man!
Since you brought up gravity & science, Newton's laws of gravitation were "settled science", right? Until Einstein & his little theory.
Einstein got her number. Newton, how you like them apples?
Certain accepted truths of Newtonian physics were partially disproven by Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/the...tific-laws
- DeGrasse Tyson
Quote: @Skodin said:
Ok, let's say that despite 97% of reporting from the scientific community stating climate change is real and the causes of it have been identified, it is still not "settled science".
I am more interested in your take on these questions of the science, not policy, not how we handle carbon, carbon pricing, incentives, subsidies, technology, etc.
Just some of the basics around the science behind this changing climate issue.
Ok, I'll bite...
I'll start with some "basics"/ inarguable data- points we might agree with: - The Earf (I'm neo-southern, by the grace of u-haul) has warmed about 1 degree celsius over the last 100+ years. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/p...uestion-1/
- CO2 levels have risen. (How much/cause/impact.....is where the present "debate" rages) See Prof. Curry discussion, above.
Get more basic, then that?
As mentioned above by others... pardon some of us that maintain a healthy dose of skepticism re: our vile carbon-based lifestyles, whilst John Kerry whisks around the world via private jet and Obama
buys multi-million dollar coastline estates.
![[Image: all-scientists-agree-heres-some-dont-cen...C461&ssl=1]](https://i2.wp.com/politicallyincorrecthumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/all-scientists-agree-heres-some-dont-censored-all.jpg?resize=505%2C461&ssl=1)
this is why 97% agree
|
