Today, A Dark Day For Environmentalists.

[PoliticalChic]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

There is a certain kind of imbecile who sees a trend....any trend...and predicts that it will continue unabated.

You.

You probably wonder why babies don't continue to grow to be the size of a barn.

Never happens.

Have you noted the population trends in Europe??
Russia?

Islamic nations???

Hania Zlotnik, director of the population division at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said “In most of the Islamic world it’s amazing, the decline in fertility that has happened,’’ … From 1975 to 1980, women in Iran were giving birth to nearly 7 children per family, according to the latest U.N. population report; from 2005 to 2010 that number is expected to be less than 2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/un-sees-big-drop-in-middle-east-fertility-rates/


"Environmentalists".....another term for really, really stupid people.



BTW.....the problem of decreasing population is so great in Turkey, that
"Turkey's President Slams Birth Control as 'Treason'"
Turkey s President Slams Birth Control as Treason

I haven't made any environmental predictions in USMB. I just asked a question.

This Ponzi scheme that our economy has become depends upon infinite growth and ever increasing rates of consumption in order to remain afloat. We live in a finite system. At some point, the shell game becomes unsustainable.

I think that's a rational position to take. It's also rational to identify with our home planet, and care for its health.

I saw a Chinese guy at the harbor the other day. He was asking for directions, in Chinese. Long story short, he throws his milk carton into the water. "No, no, no" I said, pointing to the garbage can right beside us. He motioned with his hands, indicating that his trash would sink. It was a case of a person just not grasping the concept of environmental responsibility.

You were just wringing your hands over the imaginary 'problem' of overpopulation.

It was pretty stupid of you, wasn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/resources/agricultureclimate.pdf

We highlight the following conclusions regarding the current state of the U.S. agricultural sector:
Since the 1970s, U.S. agriculture has achieved enhanced productivity, but has also experiencedgreater variability in crop yields, prices, and farm income. The changes in variabilityare, in part, climate-related, either directly (through extreme weather events) or
indirectly (due to agricultural pests and diseases).

Extreme weather events have caused severe crop damage and have exacted a significant
economic toll for U.S. farmers over the last 20 years. Total estimated damages, of which
agricultural losses are a part, from the 1988 summer drought were on the order of $56 billion(normalized to 1998 dollars using an inflation wealth index), while those from the
1993 Mississippi River Valley floods exceeded $23 billion.
Both pest damage and pesticide use have increased since 1970. Nationally, in the 1990s,
pests were estimated to have destroyed about one third of our crops, in spite of advances
in pest control technology over the last half century.
The ranges of several important crop pests in the U.S., including the soybean cyst nematode[the most destructive soybean pest in the U.S.] and corn gray leaf blight [the majordisease causing corn yield losses] have expanded since the early 1970s, possibly in
response, in part, to climate trends.

Pest and disease occurrences often coincide with extreme weather events and with
anomalous weather conditions, such as early or late rains, and decreased or increased
humidity, which by themselves can alter agricultural output. Recent climate trends, such
as increased nighttime and winter temperatures, may be contributing to the greater prevalence of crop pests.

This is not discussing the affects of climate change on a third world nation, but our own nation. Things that we are seeing right now. And people like PoliticalShit wish to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it is not happening.

OK...I admit it...I'd like to bury your head in the sand.....

But you're in luck:
They just invented a new coffin just for you that goes over the head. It's for people who are dead from the neck up

 

[PoliticalChic]

Environmentalism is not only stupid....it's dangerous!

9. Of course, everyone knows of Rachel Carson's polemic that led to bans on DDT, thereby increasing deaths due to malaria by millions! Chalk another mistake up to the environmental movement. Another dingbat predicting that there would soon be no more birds, a "Silent Spring."

There seems to be no end to Liberal's gullibility.




10. Then, there's Barry Commoner, biologist and a leading ecologist and among the founders of the modern environmental movement.....who predicted in 1969, that only a Socialist system could control man's greed, and without Socialism, earth's life-support systems would be exhausted in fifty years. He ran for President in 1980...whew! We dodged that bullet!
So....we only have until 2019?
Unless we elect Obama again.

Hard to believe how many stupid people are still subscribing to this sort of gibberish!




11. The 1972 "Limits To Growth" study would have made Malthus proud! It declared that these four horseman were galloping around the corner: famine, the exhaustion of mineral resources, overcrowding, and pollution!
But 1981, there would be no more gold to be mined! By 1985, all mercury would be gone! Zinc, by 1990, and petroleum by 1992; by 1993, no more copper for wiring, and no more natural gas!




Yet environmentalism doesn't just survive....it thrives!
Why?
Because there is no end to stupid people.....two of 'em checked into this thread!
And it helps if they are afraid of their own shadows.



There is only one explanation: the number of IQ points in the world is static....and must be divided by the ever increasing population.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

There is a certain kind of imbecile who sees a trend....any trend...and predicts that it will continue unabated.

You.

You probably wonder why babies don't continue to grow to be the size of a barn.

Never happens.

Have you noted the population trends in Europe??
Russia?

Islamic nations???

Hania Zlotnik, director of the population division at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said “In most of the Islamic world it’s amazing, the decline in fertility that has happened,’’ … From 1975 to 1980, women in Iran were giving birth to nearly 7 children per family, according to the latest U.N. population report; from 2005 to 2010 that number is expected to be less than 2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/un-sees-big-drop-in-middle-east-fertility-rates/


"Environmentalists".....another term for really, really stupid people.



BTW.....the problem of decreasing population is so great in Turkey, that
"Turkey's President Slams Birth Control as 'Treason'"
Turkey s President Slams Birth Control as Treason

I haven't made any environmental predictions in USMB. I just asked a question.

This Ponzi scheme that our economy has become depends upon infinite growth and ever increasing rates of consumption in order to remain afloat. We live in a finite system. At some point, the shell game becomes unsustainable.

I think that's a rational position to take. It's also rational to identify with our home planet, and care for its health.

I saw a Chinese guy at the harbor the other day. He was asking for directions, in Chinese. Long story short, he throws his milk carton into the water. "No, no, no" I said, pointing to the garbage can right beside us. He motioned with his hands, indicating that his trash would sink. It was a case of a person just not grasping the concept of environmental responsibility.

You were just wringing your hands over the imaginary 'problem' of overpopulation.

It was pretty stupid of you, wasn't it.

I was asking a rhetorical question. You chose not to answer it. Well, you sort of answered it by saying that the population 'problem' is self-correcting. I don't disagree with that.

If you're a tree hugging Gaia worshipper like me, you realize that the planet is self-regulating. Over-population leads to smaller families and more gays.

But the economy relies on infinite growth. If population stagnates, individual consumption must increase, ad infinitum. At some point the scheme becomes unsustainable. I don't know when that is. Maybe when every dude in China has a 4,000 sq foot house filled to the ceilings with stuff, and a personal helicopter.

Anyway, only 2 more shopping days til Xmas. I hope everyone is doing their part being a good obedient consumer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

There is a certain kind of imbecile who sees a trend....any trend...and predicts that it will continue unabated.

You.

You probably wonder why babies don't continue to grow to be the size of a barn.

Never happens.

Have you noted the population trends in Europe??
Russia?

Islamic nations???

Hania Zlotnik, director of the population division at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said “In most of the Islamic world it’s amazing, the decline in fertility that has happened,’’ … From 1975 to 1980, women in Iran were giving birth to nearly 7 children per family, according to the latest U.N. population report; from 2005 to 2010 that number is expected to be less than 2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/un-sees-big-drop-in-middle-east-fertility-rates/


"Environmentalists".....another term for really, really stupid people.



BTW.....the problem of decreasing population is so great in Turkey, that
"Turkey's President Slams Birth Control as 'Treason'"
Turkey s President Slams Birth Control as Treason

I haven't made any environmental predictions in USMB. I just asked a question.

This Ponzi scheme that our economy has become depends upon infinite growth and ever increasing rates of consumption in order to remain afloat. We live in a finite system. At some point, the shell game becomes unsustainable.

I think that's a rational position to take. It's also rational to identify with our home planet, and care for its health.

I saw a Chinese guy at the harbor the other day. He was asking for directions, in Chinese. Long story short, he throws his milk carton into the water. "No, no, no" I said, pointing to the garbage can right beside us. He motioned with his hands, indicating that his trash would sink. It was a case of a person just not grasping the concept of environmental responsibility.

You were just wringing your hands over the imaginary 'problem' of overpopulation.

It was pretty stupid of you, wasn't it.

I was asking a rhetorical question. You chose not to answer it. Well, you sort of answered it by saying that the population 'problem' is self-correcting. I don't disagree with that.

If you're a tree hugging Gaia worshipper like me, you realize that the planet is self-regulating. Over-population leads to smaller families and more gays.

But the economy relies on infinite growth. If population stagnates, individual consumption must increase, ad infinitum. At some point the scheme becomes unsustainable. I don't know when that is. Maybe when every dude in China has a 4,000 sq foot house filled to the ceilings with stuff, and a personal helicopter.

Anyway, only 2 more shopping days til Xmas. I hope everyone is doing their part being a good obedient consumer.

Environmentalism is about being totally and abysmally incorrect at every opportunity.

I see you're keeping up your end of the bargain.
I would say that you are barking up the wrong tree, but that is probably your natural voice.



And...I note you're expanding your ignorance quota by including being wrong about capitalism, the most advanced economic development in the history of mankind.

Keep up the bad work....the world can never have enough comic gold.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But...in addition to stupidity, there is another explanation: it's political.


I haven't seen any poll results, but I'd bet that the 'environmental movement' is pretty close to wholly populated by Liberals/Progressives.



12. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 53


And, a peek at why environmentalism appealed to those radicals...

" On the excellent webcast Uncommon Knowledge, Czech president Václav Klaus recently compared “two ideologies” that were “structurally very similar. They are against individual freedom. They are in favor of centralistic masterminding of our fates. They are both very similar in telling us what to do, how to live, how to behave, what to eat, how to travel, what we can do and what we cannot do.” The first of Klaus’s “two ideologies” was Communism—a system with which he was deeply familiar, having participated in the Velvet Revolution in 1989. The second was environmentalism."
The Varieties of Liberal Enthusiasm by Benjamin A. Plotinsky City Journal Spring 2010

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bad enough that private environmental organizations continue to have a powerful voice in politics....worse, the idiot in the White House is one of 'em!


13. Let's go back to 1967, when entomologist Paul Ehrlich predicted imminent disaster unless the government made "many brutal and heartless decisions"...."At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate."
"The Population Bomb," by Paul Ehrlich, p. xi



What might those 'brutal and heartless decisions' include?

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

These are quotes from the book "Ecoscience," co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.


See that first name....Holdren?

" John Paul Holdren(born March 1, 1944) is the senior advisor to Presiden tBarack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology(PCAST)"
John Holdren - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Get that???
This maniac, Holdren, was hired by the maniac in the White House.




Malthus was just wrong.

But his heirs are not simply wrong...they have allied the movement with big government command-and-control communism.

 

[Old Rocks]

My goodness, those God damned fucked up communistic glaciers and ice caps melting in a grand conspiracy to enslave poor little PoliticalShit. All them cyclones and exceptional rainstorms are figments of those little pinko Philipinoes. Yessirreee......... ol' PoliticalShit really has it nailed.

 

[daveman]

My goodness, those God damned fucked up communistic glaciers and ice caps melting in a grand conspiracy to enslave poor little PoliticalShit. All them cyclones and exceptional rainstorms are figments of those little pinko Philipinoes. Yessirreee......... ol' PoliticalShit really has it nailed.

NOAA Report Destroys Global Warming Link To Extreme Weather - Forbes

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

ABSTRACT—Stephanie C. Herring, Martin P. Hoerling, Thomas C. Peterson, and Peter A. Stott
Attribution of extreme events is a challenging science
and one that is currently undergoing considerable evolution.
In this paper, 20 different research groups explored
the causes of 16 different events that occurred in 2013.
The findings indicate that human-caused climate change
greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves
assessed in this report. How human influence affected
other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events,
and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability
likely played a much larger role in these extremes.
Multiple groups chose to look at both the Australian heat
waves and the California drought, providing an opportunity
to compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses
of various methodologies. There was considerable
agreement about the role anthropogenic climate change
played in the events between the different assessments.
This year three analyses were of severe storms and none
found an anthropogenic signal. However, attribution assessments
of these types of events pose unique challenges
due to the often limited observational record. When
human-influence for an event is not identified with the
scientific tools available to us today, this means that if
there is a human contribution, it cannot be distinguished
from natural climate variability.

The author of the Forbes article is completely full of shit. Purposeful misinterpretation of the article. The article states that they could not find a definate anthropogenic signal, except for the heat waves. The link is to the source article.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

IF the progressives and liberals have their way we will be poor, hungry, and dieing.. waiting for our next government handout...

 

[Treeshepherd]

I have no affiliation with progressives. They invented prohibition, and I'm at the bar right now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

There is a certain kind of imbecile who sees a trend....any trend...and predicts that it will continue unabated.

You.

You probably wonder why babies don't continue to grow to be the size of a barn.

Never happens.

Have you noted the population trends in Europe??
Russia?

Islamic nations???

Hania Zlotnik, director of the population division at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said “In most of the Islamic world it’s amazing, the decline in fertility that has happened,’’ … From 1975 to 1980, women in Iran were giving birth to nearly 7 children per family, according to the latest U.N. population report; from 2005 to 2010 that number is expected to be less than 2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/un-sees-big-drop-in-middle-east-fertility-rates/


"Environmentalists".....another term for really, really stupid people.



BTW.....the problem of decreasing population is so great in Turkey, that
"Turkey's President Slams Birth Control as 'Treason'"
Turkey s President Slams Birth Control as Treason

I haven't made any environmental predictions in USMB. I just asked a question.

This Ponzi scheme that our economy has become depends upon infinite growth and ever increasing rates of consumption in order to remain afloat. We live in a finite system. At some point, the shell game becomes unsustainable.

I think that's a rational position to take. It's also rational to identify with our home planet, and care for its health.

I saw a Chinese guy at the harbor the other day. He was asking for directions, in Chinese. Long story short, he throws his milk carton into the water. "No, no, no" I said, pointing to the garbage can right beside us. He motioned with his hands, indicating that his trash would sink. It was a case of a person just not grasping the concept of environmental responsibility.

We have the entire universe. Only finite if we wish to limit ourselves to our tiny little planet.

 

[Treeshepherd]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

There is a certain kind of imbecile who sees a trend....any trend...and predicts that it will continue unabated.

You.

You probably wonder why babies don't continue to grow to be the size of a barn.

Never happens.

Have you noted the population trends in Europe??
Russia?

Islamic nations???

Hania Zlotnik, director of the population division at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said “In most of the Islamic world it’s amazing, the decline in fertility that has happened,’’ … From 1975 to 1980, women in Iran were giving birth to nearly 7 children per family, according to the latest U.N. population report; from 2005 to 2010 that number is expected to be less than 2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/un-sees-big-drop-in-middle-east-fertility-rates/


"Environmentalists".....another term for really, really stupid people.



BTW.....the problem of decreasing population is so great in Turkey, that
"Turkey's President Slams Birth Control as 'Treason'"
Turkey s President Slams Birth Control as Treason

I haven't made any environmental predictions in USMB. I just asked a question.

This Ponzi scheme that our economy has become depends upon infinite growth and ever increasing rates of consumption in order to remain afloat. We live in a finite system. At some point, the shell game becomes unsustainable.

I think that's a rational position to take. It's also rational to identify with our home planet, and care for its health.

I saw a Chinese guy at the harbor the other day. He was asking for directions, in Chinese. Long story short, he throws his milk carton into the water. "No, no, no" I said, pointing to the garbage can right beside us. He motioned with his hands, indicating that his trash would sink. It was a case of a person just not grasping the concept of environmental responsibility.

We have the entire universe. Only finite if we wish to limit ourselves to our tiny little planet.

You're the guy who thinks we're about to mine the moon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

There is a certain kind of imbecile who sees a trend....any trend...and predicts that it will continue unabated.

You.

You probably wonder why babies don't continue to grow to be the size of a barn.

Never happens.

Have you noted the population trends in Europe??
Russia?

Islamic nations???

Hania Zlotnik, director of the population division at the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said “In most of the Islamic world it’s amazing, the decline in fertility that has happened,’’ … From 1975 to 1980, women in Iran were giving birth to nearly 7 children per family, according to the latest U.N. population report; from 2005 to 2010 that number is expected to be less than 2. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/un-sees-big-drop-in-middle-east-fertility-rates/


"Environmentalists".....another term for really, really stupid people.



BTW.....the problem of decreasing population is so great in Turkey, that
"Turkey's President Slams Birth Control as 'Treason'"
Turkey s President Slams Birth Control as Treason

I haven't made any environmental predictions in USMB. I just asked a question.

This Ponzi scheme that our economy has become depends upon infinite growth and ever increasing rates of consumption in order to remain afloat. We live in a finite system. At some point, the shell game becomes unsustainable.

I think that's a rational position to take. It's also rational to identify with our home planet, and care for its health.

I saw a Chinese guy at the harbor the other day. He was asking for directions, in Chinese. Long story short, he throws his milk carton into the water. "No, no, no" I said, pointing to the garbage can right beside us. He motioned with his hands, indicating that his trash would sink. It was a case of a person just not grasping the concept of environmental responsibility.

We have the entire universe. Only finite if we wish to limit ourselves to our tiny little planet.

You're the guy who thinks we're about to mine the moon.

Why shouldn't we??? Also, we've found nearly 2,000 extrasolar planets and there's likely 50 bililon within our galaxy alone. I just believe humanity can do better.

 

[Treeshepherd]

You can be a Hegelian. Party on! If you want my opinion, we're stuck on this rock.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's a toss-up as to whether environmentalism is based more on stupidity, or more on Marxism....

Holdren....selected by the White House Windbag as his science czar....

"But as late as 1995, Holdren joined Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily in co-authoring an essay on “The Meaning of Sustainability” included in a book published by the World Bank. Here they listed things ‘[w]e know for certain.” Among them: “No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable.”

“This is enough,” they concluded, “to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”

In a table published with this essay, Holdren and his co-authors listed as one of the “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-Being” what they called “Reduced disparities within and between countries.” The “rationale” for this, they said, was: “The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability.”

Or as Obama told Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher in 2008: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Obama Adviser s Green Manifesto Americans Will Be Better Off When They Work Produce and Earn Less Human Events


Holdren: Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.



And this:

 

[Old Rocks]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

IF the progressives and liberals have their way we will be poor, hungry, and dieing.. waiting for our next government handout...

Go ahead and beg for the next govenment handout, Billy Boob. They have special departmenst serving the mentally infirm. In the meantime, I will continue at my job, and continue to take university classes on the side. Not being a red state conservative, I have an excellent job, full time, with good pay and benefits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The buzzword now in environmental circles is 'sustainability'.

So, we're at 7 billion people now, give or take. You all seems to think that's sustainable. Is there a number at which you might change your tune? How about 20 billion people? Would that be sustainable? Or, would you continue to argue that technology will always overcome the challenges of sustaining any number of people?

IF the progressives and liberals have their way we will be poor, hungry, and dieing.. waiting for our next government handout...

Go ahead and beg for the next govenment handout, Billy Boob. They have special departmenst serving the mentally infirm. In the meantime, I will continue at my job, and continue to take university classes on the side. Not being a red state conservative, I have an excellent job, full time, with good pay and benefits.

"....continue to take university classes..."

One would have imagined some positive result of same.....
...certainly doesn't seem to be in evidence.

Perhaps you should transfer out of the "Robert Fiance School of Beauty-
LearnHairAndMakeup.com"

 

[Old Rocks]

Perhaps you should move beyond third grade science, you silly ass. The major is geology. I see no evidence you have ever learned anything but copy and paste. Certainly no logic.