Solving climate crisis will require a total transformation of global energy

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by skepticalmike, May 19, 2021.

  1. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/solving-...bal-energy-use-iae-report-says-191241783.html

    The changes advocated by the Int'l Energy Agency to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 are radical. The goal is to limit the Earth's GMST to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-
    industrial levels..

    The IEA report is titled, "Net Zero by 2050, A Roadmap for the global energy sector"

    https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/a...roby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector.pdf


    The highlights from the Yahoo article:

    According to the report, the actions required to transform global energy consumption and production include:

    • Increasing the use of renewable sources of energy from 29 percent in 2020 to 90 percent in 2050

    • Halting construction of all new coal plants this year, unless they are built with carbon-capture technology

    • Implementing a ban in 2025 on the sale of new oil and gas furnaces to heat buildings

    • Phasing out the sale of automobiles that use gasoline by 2035

    • Conversion of vehicle fleets to either electric or hydrogen fuel sources by 2050

    • Shifting power plants away from carbon emissions to renewable sources of energy by 2035

    • Closing all coal-fired power plants not fitted with carbon-capture technology by 2040

    • Transitioning half of all plane-travel energy sources to hydrogen or biofuels by 2040
    The report, however, is quick to acknowledge that meeting the goals it lays out will be enormously difficult.

    I am just putting this information out here. I don't want to argue with those who reject
    a major role for humans in recent global warming. The issue isn't going away.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2021
    Melb_muser and Cosmo like this.
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it is. The coming decade of cooling will put a stake through its heart.
     
    Polydectes and drluggit like this.
  3. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    drluggit and Polydectes like this.
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Chinese are not on board, and that makes the rest close to meaningless.
    What’s The Point? In 2020 China Built The Equivalent Of More Than One New Large Coal Plant Per Week
    By Kenneth Richard on 27. May 2021

    Share this...
    There has been a sustained global-scale effort to reduce coal power capacity in recent years. Meanwhile, China’s government has been busy loosening restrictions on coal plant construction to power its post-pandemic economy. In 2020, China built over three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined – with no signs of letting up in years to come.
    While the rest of the world combined to commission just 11.9 gigawatts (GW) of new coal plants in 2020, China alone commissioned 38.4 GW of new coal-fired power capacity (Global Energy Monitor, 2021).

    Over 73 gigawatts (GW) of new coal power projects were initiated in China last year. This is five times as much as in all other countries combined. . . .
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  5. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Some of that construction of coal plants is domestic stimulus needed to keep people employed. Some coal plants in China are facing bankruptcy and the average amount of power generated by
    China's coal plants is on the decline.

    China-Dominates-2020-Coal-Development.pdf (globalenergymonitor.org)

    "Chinaʼs carbon neutrality pledge increases the likelihood that these new coal plants, if built, will face a declining market for coal power and shortened lifetime. Already the average operating hours for the countryʼs coal fleet is on the decline, driving down profits and pushing several Chinese power companies into bankruptcy. With the 14th FYP expected to be finalized this year, the central government must soon choose between allowing a new wave of coal projects to be used as domestic stimulus or aligning Chinaʼs power sector with President Xiʼs 2060 carbon neutrality goal. In a hopeful sign that the central government may rein in coal development and prioritize clean energy, the Central Environment Inspection Group recently issued an unprecedented, highly critical report of the National Energy Administration (NEA) for lax enforcement of the countryʼs environmental standards and restrictions on coal development. The move suggests controls on new coal plants may soon be tightened, retirements accelerated, and some already permitted projects suspended or cancelled – although whether and at what scale remains an open question."

    China has invested heavily in wind and solar power.

    "The increased investment also included clean energy, and in 2020 China added up to 119 GW of wind and solar power to the grid, an all-time record and over double the amount installed in 2019 (56 GW)"
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Question asked by the Post #4, What's the Point?

    "What is the point of decommissioning coal for the sake of “climate change mitigation” in places like Europe and the United States if the government of China has decided growing its economy is more important than reducing global net CO2 emissions?"

    The point is that decommissioning coal in the U.S., Europe, and China will take time.(a few decades) and time is not on our side.


    Natural gas is cheaper in the U.S. than coal, so it makes sense for the U.S. to eliminate very polluting coal plants. Eventually, the U.S. will need to reduce carbon emissions from natural gas plants, possibly by

    sequestering the carbon or by replacing some portion of those natural gas plants with renewable energy. The U.S. and Europe are responsible for a large share of the total carbon emissions released into the

    atmosphere so we should reduce those emissions as soon as possible. I don't assume that China will continue with their aggressive building of coal power plants into the future. At some point, as the Earth's

    temperatures continue to climb, the rest of the world will be able to put pressure on China. China is already a leader in wind and solar power technology and is constructing more energy generating capacity

    from those sources than coal..
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    China's "carbon neutrality pledge" is, in all likelihood, merely a tactical lie.
     
    drluggit and Sunsettommy like this.
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Chinese do not care in the slightest about "pressure" from the rest of the world. Their aggressive building of coal power plants will likely follow an ascending curve.
     
  9. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The only leverage that I can think of that we might have with China is to impose tariffs. The U.S.A., Japan, Canada, and the European Union could all impose tariffs unless China agrees to stop

    building coal-fired power plants.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Solidarity is unlikely and the Chinese will have myriad other partners by then anyway.
     
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Bullseye and drluggit like this.
  12. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    1,435
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When they promote obvious lies and deceptions in their babblings, then it becomes apparent they have no case for a climate emergency at all.
     
    drluggit, gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One doesn't hope for this, as global cooling is unambiguously harmful to humanity -- but if it could somehow be arranged for all the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria-mongers to be frozen by a blizzard in Miami....
     
    gfm7175 and Jack Hays like this.
  14. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you referring to the self-evidently non-existent climate crisis...?
    Notice the utter dishonesty of calling the end of the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years, and the 500-year period of lowest solar activity, "pre-industrial" rather than, "post-solar activity cycle minimum." All your absurd anti-fossil-fuel hate programs aren't going to stop the earth from returning naturally to more normal Holocene temperatures, sorry.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  15. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,418
    Likes Received:
    51,229
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "THEY ARE BOUGHT AND OWNED": L A Times Publishes Beijing-Funded Propaganda, Conceals China’s Massive Coal Use & Emissions.
    [​IMG]
    China's additions are offsetting all of our subtractions, but the LAT's main focus is whipping the US to do more while remaining largely silent on the Outlaw Lying Polluting Slavers of Beijing.

    Look at the difference btw the steep rise of China and the first leveling off and then falling of US emissions.

    China's air pollution 2.5 pm particulate is the 20th worst in the world at 52.66
    US on the same measure is the 9th cleanest at 7.41

    And the 8 countries that beat us are nowhere near the economic powerhouses that the US is.

    Norway; Estonia; Iceland; Canada; Sweden; New Zealand; Brunei; Finland

    https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3/rankings
     
    Sunsettommy, bringiton and Jack Hays like this.
  16. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They aren't going to stop. Ironically, the climate movement likely incentivizes them to buy even more coal because there is less competition for it, so they can get it cheaper. The almost singular obsession with eradicating the fossil fuel industry is why we will never get anywhere close to the target.
     
    Sunsettommy, bringiton and Jack Hays like this.
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The facts don't support the hype.
    The Current Legal Onslaught Is Unlikely To Limit World Oil Production Significantly
    May 30, 2021/ Francis Menton

    • As you may be aware, a big part of the recent strategy of environmental activists supposedly to address “climate change” has been a multi-front legal onslaught against the major oil producing companies. The onslaught has included everything from hundreds of lawsuits in as many jurisdictions, restrictive new laws, regulatory initiatives, proxy contests, and much else.

    • The past few days have brought news of what may appear to be a couple of major victories by the activists. In the U.S., insurgent shareholders on May 26 scored a victory in a proxy contest involving ExxonMobil, successfully electing two directors (out of twelve) to the board of the company. Separately, on the same day, in a lawsuit brought in the Netherlands by Friends of the Earth, a court in The Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon emissions by some 45% by 2030.

    • Various media sources, including the Wall Street Journal at the two links above, are reporting these developments as significant defeats for the oil and gas industry, and even as harbingers of its impending rapid decline in the face of mounting legal obstacles. But is such a decline really likely?
    READ MORE
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not everyone is planning for transition.

    Russia bets big on coal, gas, fossil fuels, and not on renewables
    [​IMG]
    Росгвардия

    The West is switching to trendy unreliable energy while Russia is ramping up coal and gas production.

    Russia is building a ten billion dollar railroad to sell coal to Asia, but Australia is building a ten billion dollar hydro bandaid “battery” just to make unreliable energy slightly less useless.

    Russia is being left behind on renewables, and they’re probably delighted. The more the West cripples itself in a quest to make sparkly green-electrons that stop the storms, the richer the Russians will get.

    With the second largest coal reserves in the world, they’re well positioned to meet the growing demand from India and China. Indeed, if Russia could just think of a way to stop the USA and Australia from producing coal, they could corner the market.

    If Russian Intel isn’t paying climate activists and child-complainers a retainer, they must have rocks for brains. But since they are apparently paying French and German bloggers to discredit the Pfizer vaccine perhaps they already are some of the great minds behind Greenpeace?

    And if they were funding climate disinformation campaigns, which media outlet would tell us? . . . .
     
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    drluggit likes this.
  20. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,401
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How seriously do the people pushing ACC? The loudest voices are the biggest user of energy.. those people aren't giving up the many mansions and houses, their private jets, limousines and yachts.. are they? Ed Begley Jr. hopeless lib that he is, at least walks the walk. (or so it seems. rides a bicycle, recycles etcc... )
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Appealing to holy links (and allowing them to do your thinking for you) is your first mistake...

    Yes, they are... Apparently, the IEA is advocating for the eradication of all life on Earth as we know it...

    WTF does this gibberbabble even mean? Obviously, this is just made-up nonsense. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy (we don't have NEAR enough thermometers).

    [1] We already make use of renewable sources... Oil and natural gas are renewable (they form naturally underground). Wind and Solar alone cannot power the world (it is expensive piddle power in comparison to coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear).
    [2] Coal in the USA burns very cleanly these days. This is just stupid policy hindering our energy production potential.
    [3] Making it harder/more expensive to heat buildings is just plain stupid.
    [4] Electric vehicles are not for everyone... They can't be refueled near as fast as a gasoline vehicle can. Electric vehicles are also more expensive (especially without government subsidies).

    This also creates a huge increase in the demand for electricity. Where is the additional supply coming from to meet this increased demand (especially when "fossil fuels" are being done away with)? Wind and solar?? hahaha that's laughable. What if the grid goes down? What if there is an EMP strike?
    [5] See above. Can these vehicles pull/tow as much as gasoline vehicles can? We still need to transport goods around ya know...
    [6] See #1 and the second part of #4.
    [7] See #6 and #2.
    [8] So you want shittier planes too, eh?

    DUH.

    There is NO issue AT ALL. Global Warming is a wacky religion that rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

    We don't have a way of measuring Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy because we don't have near enough thermometers (denial of mathematics).

    Colder CO2 cannot heat a warmer surface (denial of 2nd law of thermodynamics).

    Earth cannot increase in temperature without additional energy coming from somewhere (denial of 1st law of thermodynamics).

    Heat cannot be "trapped by CO2" inside of Earth, unable to radiate into space. IOW, Earth cannot be decreasing in radiance while simultaneously increasing in temperature (denial of stefan boltzmann law).

    Arguments cannot be based on meaningless buzzwords (denial of logic).

    Global Warming is a wacky religion meant to scare people into giving up their power/control/freedom/autonomy to the government (eventually a global world government) and to otherwise become slaves to government, subject to their tyranny. It is a power/control grab. It is a money grab.
     
    drluggit, ToddWB, Sunsettommy and 2 others like this.
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,371
    Likes Received:
    17,358
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The renewables bubble will burst, like so many other speculative bubbles.

    Don't Get Discouraged About The Preposterous Plans To Eliminate Fossil Fuels
    June 05, 2021/ Francis Menton
    [​IMG]

    • It’s easy to get discouraged about the “climate” scare, otherwise known as the socialist takeover of everything under the cover story of a faux moral crusade to “save the planet.” Sometimes it seems that all you can hear are preening politicians and academics and journalists and “scientists” shouting about the immediate “existential crisis” that requires the prompt end of fossil fuels and that your energy use (but not theirs) must be severely restricted.

    • Just today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement warning that the next ten years are our “final chance” to avert a “climate catastrophe”:

    • We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency — biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. . . . Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . .

    • The few people pushing back get shouted down and drowned out. How could this possibly end well?
    READ MORE

    ". . . . When I discuss this subject with my climate skeptic friends, most are amazed that I remain an optimist. But good reasons are on my side. While we realists may not have the megaphone at the moment, I am very confident that energy realism will ultimately win out, and much sooner than you might think. The reasons are simple: the magical “renewables” don’t work and are ridiculously expensive. And when the people figure this out, as they inevitably will, the anti-fossil-fuel jihad can quickly turn toxic for the left. . . . "
     
    drluggit, Sunsettommy and ToddWB like this.
  23. skepticalmike

    skepticalmike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    447
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It is sad that 3 people liked this post. It denies that the natural greenhouse effect exists and shows a misunderstanding of atmospheric physics. I, and others, have explained to this person

    that there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics when trace gases in the atmosphere that are cooler than the surface warm the Earth's surface. Earth's surface can increase in temperature

    without an additional source of energy by the addition of non-condensable trace gases to the atmosphere that absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Earth.The radiance of the Earth increases but

    the radiance of the added carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emit radiation back to space at a higher elevation and lower temperature so their radiances decrease. Once equilibrium is

    established with the added atmospheric greenhouse gases, the equivalent radiance of the earth-atmosphere system remains the same, with the Earth's surface and atmosphere radiating the

    same amount of energy absorbed by the sun as it did prior to the addition of these greenhouse gases. There is no violation of the first law of thermodynamics. When the second law is applied to radiation

    one must consider net radiation, not one-way radiation.

    Anthropogenic global warming is no different in principle from natural global warming. If humans weren't the source of most of the warming then one would have to come up with a natural

    explanation and no one has been able to put forth a convincing argument. The total solar irradiance and solar activity has been declining slightly in recent decades but the Earth's

    surface temperature has continued to rise. The year 2020 was the second hottest on record and that occurred without the help from the sun or the oceans (El Nino).

    It seems to me that the deniers of human-caused global warming are unable to either face or understand reality.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2021
    Montegriffo and Cosmo like this.
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All true. But "can increase" hides the fact that the increase is microscopically small.
    But their concentration is higher, so the total amount of energy radiated outward stays the same.
    Bingo. There is no mechanism for increased CO2 in the upper atmosphere to significantly affect surface temperature because downward IR radiation is all absorbed by water vapor in the lower troposphere, from whence it just makes its way back up to the emission altitude. The changes are confined to the upper levels of the atmosphere, above the level where there is significant water vapor.
    Right.
    WRONG. Natural global warming is almost entirely due to water vapor, which is in equilibrium, so human activities can't affect it. Anthropogenic global surface warming is due to a number of factors, especially land use changes. CO2 only affects the upper atmosphere's radiative balance and temperature profile, not surface temperature.
    No, the convincing -- and conclusive -- argument has been made: all previous similar century-scale warming episodes were natural, so the most recent one probably is too.
    No, they remained above historical norms -- and FAR above the LIA norm -- until the last several years.
    Only due to land use changes, urbanization, etc. Actual temperature readings from well sited, stable rural instruments have shown temperatures declining.
    Only after instrument readings were retroactively altered to make them match the CO2-governs-temperature hypothesis.

    It seems to me that the deniers of natural global warming are unable to either face or understand reality.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2021
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.
  25. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was refreshing to see that three people aren't completely sucked into the BS that is called "global warming" (or "climate change").

    What is "greenhouse effect"? Describe the specific mechanism of which you speak... Hint: there is no such thing, as colder atmospheric CO2 cannot heat the warmer surface of Earth (cold cannot heat hot... ice cubes are not used to heat water).

    The misunderstanding is yours.

    It's a direct violation. Thermal energy does not flow from cold to hot in a closed system such as the Sun-Earth-Space system. Entropy always increases (or stays the same... it NEVER decreases).

    Yes, but where is this additional energy coming from?

    NOPE. There MUST be additional energy in order for temperature to increase. Where is this additional energy coming from?

    The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere (or the presence of an atmosphere for that matter) does not increase the temperature of the surface of a planet.

    How so? Aren't you claiming that CO2 in the atmosphere is "trapping" heat? Under that belief, radiance would be DECREASING, not increasing.

    This makes no sense... There is no such thing as "radiation" that "gets emitted". Did you mean to reference some particular form of energy? (maybe thermal, since that's what I've been talking about?) Also, if more radiation is occurring, there can't also be less radiation.

    There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". The concept in and of itself violates the 2nd LoT.

    The atmosphere IS part of the Earth, dude. If you are defining the bounds of your system as the Earth itself, then you cannot make any reference to the sun or to space (which are both outside of the defined boundaries of your system).

    I have been talking about the Sun-Earth-Space system, not the Earth system. You can't switch between systems to attempt to make sense out of your science denial.

    Now you're back to the Sun-Earth-Space system... You need to pick one and stick with it. So now "greenhouse gases" DON'T "trap heat" (thus decreasing Earth's radiance)? Why are they so bad then?

    Yes there is.

    Thank you for providing me with yet another word to add to the Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy... https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/122/lispy-leftist-list-linguistic-lunacy

    There is no "net radiation" occurring. There is only radiance.

    r = C*e*t^4, where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates), and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

    Per this equation, IF radiance (r) were decreased, THEN temperature (t) MUST likewise decrease. You cannot have radiance decreasing while temperature is increasing, as that would be in violation of Stefan Boltzmann.

    You have yet to specify the mechanism of either one (AGW or natural GW) in a way that doesn't violate logic, science, and/or mathematics.

    What "warming" are you talking about? It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy since we do not have nearly enough thermometers to do so (because temperature has such a high variance value). This is where your Global Warming religion begins to reject mathematics.

    Where is the additional energy coming from then (if not from the sun)?

    Made up BS numbers... It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We don't have near enough thermometers... It would take upwards of 200 million thermometers in order to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis.

    Define "reality". I bet you don't even know what it is.

    I deny it because I happen to accept logic, science, and mathematics (the three things which YOU are a "denier" of).
     
    Sunsettommy and Jack Hays like this.

Share This Page