Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern?

LetsGoBrandon · Aug 30, 2016

Russell797 said:
Well there is a reason only 6% of American scientists claim to be politically conservative.

Sorry. I just do not buy that unless you want to narrow it to the liberal arts.

Science is a liberal enterprise. Science is left wing.

No....just the quacks trolling for government grants are left wing. The myth of scientific consensus on man made climate change has already been destroyed. The so called consensus amounted to roughly three dozen scientists and not all of them specialized in climate science.

You guys despise academia, calling it left wing nonsense is par for the course.

Utter nonsense. We hold honestly peer reviewed science in very high regard. We just have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to wild eyed scientific claims made based on politicised government grant funded science. Many of us have lived long enough to observe such science crash and burn. One example is the global cooling we were promised in the 1970s. And historically there were other similar scares prior to the 7os.

You hate government and you hate authority figures while adoring dogmatic concepts and ideologies.

You are pretty much just making it up as you go along. We do not hate government. Without government, we would be living in utter chaos. We merely have a poroblem with vastly over-bloated government...or government that does not respect the US Constitution. We believe in the founding fathers concept of limited government. They understood what happens when government goes too far. That's why they did not design our form of government around the british monarchy.

Yes we parrot the science as put out in public by our academic institutions and scientific organizations. It's called learning from reputable sources. Try it some time.

if you do not employ a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to controversial science, you are simply allowing yourself to be brainwashed. You are not thinking for yourself.

Oh, and by the way, here in Massachusetts we have 95% of the public covered by health insurance. We have had a form of "Obamacare" for several years longer than the rest of you. It's doing just fine.

But then, Massachusetts is is a far left state that is quite okay with the concept of government acting as everyone's mommy and daddy. The majority of Americans are fiercely against that concept being spread nationwide....and it certainly is not working as advertised.....not to mention the mandate violates the US Constitution. The bill was passed over the objection of the majority of Americans. And I think even you will admit that it is one of the biggest issues that led to the democrats losing control of the House of representatives and the Senate. Just how much more is your party willing to give up as you continue to circle the wagons and defend Obamacare?

LetsGoBrandon · Aug 30, 2016

longview said:
I think the switch over will occur much sooner, and for the most part will be transparent to the consumer.
I think the first step will be man made fuels, made in the existing refineries.
Because of co generation, most refineries already have massive electrical grid connections.
When the price of oil delivered to the refinery exceeds about $90 a barrel, it will be cheaper for the refinery to
make their own feedstock (olefin) from water, atmospheric CO2, and electricity.
The distribution and retail infrastructure is already in place and paid off,
and the market for normal hydrocarbon fuels is still present.
We may eventually move to hydrogen as a fuel, but hydrogen is difficult to store, and we do not have an infrastructure.
Synthetic fuels: Audi e-fuels > Product > Sustainability at Audi > AUDI AG

The infrastructure will not be the problem. The most likely alternative fuel will be hydrogen. The problem will not be the refineries. The problem is that we are still not yet to the point where we can incorporate the technology into making automobile cost effective enough to sell such an to rank and file Americans. That is what we need to solve.

Helix · Aug 30, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
There are many valid reasons for seeking to get off the oil pig, without bringing up the man-made climate change nonsense. Climate change is a reality however it is not man-made and it's nothing to panic over. And there is the fact that there is not a damn thing we can do to prevent climate change. Having said that, I see no reason to pollute any more then we have to. The smog in Los Angeles is terrible.

agree on that one. i see addressing climate change as a side benefit to doing what we should have done after the oil crisis in the 1970s. plus, it just makes sense to accept that we didn't reach the pinnacle of energy tech in the nineteenth century. we might disagree that some climate change is absolutely being caused by spewing too much carbon into the atmosphere, but honestly, it hardly matters if we agree that we ought to be doing something about the current energy model.

ObamacareFail said:
I agree about the electrical infrastructure and the nuclear power plants. However on the nuclear plants, you have only your friends on the left to blame. They pretty much brought the construction of nuclear power plants to a screeching halt in the 1980s We are just now getting back into designing and building them.

i support cutting red tape and building nuclear power plants regardless of NIMBY crap. from what i've read, thorium looks like the best option. if we can send a man to the moon with less than the computing power of a modern graphing calculator, i'm sure that we can figure out a way to build nuclear power plants that don't melt down in the 21st century.

ObamacareFail said:
Agreed. They cannot be solved with military intervention alone, however in many cases, they cannot be solved without military intervention. Hitlet was certainly not going to be stopped from taking over all of Europe without military intervention. Japan's attempted conquest of all of Asia was not going to be stopped without military force either. And Iraq was not going to pull their forces from Kuwait without military intervention. I am hoping that you accept that there are some valid reasons for military intervention in many cases. The alternative at this point in time would be letting tinpot dictators control the majority of the world's natural resources.

not every problem is Hitler, nor is every conflict WWII. i believe that WWII was a war that we couldn't stay out of (although it was a direct result of WWI, a war which should have been avoided,) and the domestic population sacrificed significantly to achieve victory. i don't believe that IS is a similar situation, and those who do aren't willing to pay a penny more in taxes to fund it. i support withdrawing troops from the region and getting off of oil as quickly as possible. if you really want to defeat IS, remove their cash cow.

Nilly · Aug 30, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
Utter nonsense. We hold honestly peer reviewed science in very high regard. We just have a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to wild eyed scientific claims made based on politicised government grant funded science. Many of us have lived long enough to observe such science crash and burn. One example is the global cooling we were promised in the 1970s. And historically there were other similar scares prior to the 7os.

I already explained to you that global cooling was blown out of proportion by the media, not scientists. The majority of peer reviewed papers predicted warming. The sample size is small, as climate change wasn't as big of a topic back then, but the actual scientific consensus always was more towards warming than cooling. So science didn't crash and burn.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

Not to mention, the papers that predicted cooling based their predictions on the continuing emission of SO2 (aerosols) which we curtailed. Exactly what AGW proponents want to happen with CO2.

cue OF posting a bunch of media articles predicting global cooling thinking that proves me wrong without realizing it proves me right, again

bubbabgone · Aug 30, 2016

Nilly said:
Ok, did some reading, what's your main issue with Andergregg then?

Conclusion:

The fact that it uses number of publications to measure expertise, and didn't take into account people who didn't have 20+ publications (although that didn't actually change the results)?

Doran was based off of a 2 min web survey, which could have been hacked, I guess? He writes n FAQ on it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GqdxrQZjIRPo6r5yNgprMnGeYP71IjkDvymG_UG6XXM/edit

The 90%+ figure is only based off of those people who consider their primary expertise climate science (a total of 79 people in the survey - giving an error margin of 11%). BUt the figures for people in other disciplines are also very high (80+). Not to mention, the figure for people who are not impacted by funding at all is at 82%. You'd have thought if there was more of a conspiracy they'd be doing some whistleblowing.

The "Doran" survey should really have been called the "Zimmerman" survey since she was the student and he was the advisor.
It was a 2 question survey, it was on-line, only a very small portion of respondents were actually climate scientists, fewer than 80 of those had published half their papers on climate change. That watered down, and self-limiting group, concluded human activity was a significant factor in whatever warming took place.
Reading that Google site piece about Doran should have made it obvious that the methodology was horribly flawed. Laughable even.

Andergregg, another student, used an on-line application and his own self-established criteria and found only 200 scientists worthy to determine his consensus.

Now ... it should be obvious that factors that destroy all these surveys include the limited number of survey participants, the selectivity of participants chosen to participate, the data counting mechanism, the assignment of the participant's position by criteria established by the surveyor, and manipulative use of self-interpreted data to arrive at the desired number.
And the participants aren't usually asked how serious the warming is or how negatively impactful it is.

You'll find more than one of those factors in any survey that touts preposterous numbers like 97%.

Nilly · Aug 30, 2016

bubbabgone said:
The "Doran" survey should really have been called the "Zimmerman" survey since she was the student and he was the advisor.
It was a 2 question survey, it was on-line, only a very small portion of respondents were actually climate scientists, fewer than 80 of those had published half their papers on climate change. That watered down, and self-limiting group, concluded human activity was a significant factor in whatever warming took place.
Reading that Google site piece about Doran should have made it obvious that the methodology was horribly flawed. Laughable even.

Andergregg, another student, used an on-line application and his own self-established criteria and found only 200 scientists worthy to determine his consensus.

Now ... it should be obvious that factors that destroy all these surveys include the limited number of survey participants, the selectivity of participants chosen to participate, the data counting mechanism, the assignment of the participant's position by criteria established by the surveyor, and manipulative use of self-interpreted data to arrive at the desired number.
And the participants aren't usually asked how serious the warming is or how negatively impactful it is.

You'll find more than one of those factors in any survey that touts preposterous numbers like 97%.

Do you have a background in statistics?

Did you know that a sample size of 300 (randomly selected) people is enough to get a max confidence interval of just 7% of a population of 300,000,000 at a 99% confidence level? Do you know how many climate scientists there are? Not 300,000,000.

With Doran, you're right that out of the 10,000 people surveyed, 3000 replied, and only 80 of them had climate change as their primary expertise. I already said that, and it really doesn't bother me, their 95% figure now has a confidence interval of around 11 (I calculate it as 10 but w/e). Whoop de doo. What that means is that given those results, we can be 95% sure (assuming we're at the 95% confidence level) sure that the number of climate scientists that believe that climate change is at least, at least (95% - 11%) = 84%. Still consensus. And that's not a number I've plucked out of thin air, real statistics can show that. Hard math.

As for Andergregg, you can criticize their way of establishing expertise, you could say that the criteria that Andergregg chose for inclusion (X > x number of published papers) is flawed, but so is every other way of ranking expertise. His methodology was based on papers, rather than a questionnaire.

So no, it's not obvious that these factors destroy all the surveys, given that

a) sampling is difficult, particularly in a field as small as 'climate scientists'
b) the number of studies that have come to the same conclusion
c) statements from other scientific bodies of repute (both affirming statements, and the lack of dissenting ones)

Now, I'm not saying the value is necessarily 97%. There are margins of error whenever you sample, and they're drilled into you from your undergrad days. However, I'm not specifically arguing that the number is 97%, I'm arguing that the scientific consensus is there. And the numbers, along with the stances from every national or international organization of repute, are enough to convince me that the scientific consensus is there.

I'll say it for maybe the millionth time now, at this point, you're not even trying to deny climate change, you're trying to poke holes in the methodology used to estimate the number of scientists who think that climate change exists. That's the only laughable thing here.

longview · Aug 31, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
The infrastructure will not be the problem. The most likely alternative fuel will be hydrogen. The problem will not be the refineries. The problem is that we are still not yet to the point where we can incorporate the technology into making automobile cost effective enough to sell such an to rank and file Americans. That is what we need to solve.

The point is that millions of cars are on the road, and paid for, and people are familiar with how to fill them up.
Storing the energy in a form that is compatible with existing infrastructure and demand,
will come before everyone is driving a different type of car and filling up at a different style of pump.
It may well turn out that one of the existing hydrocarbon fuels is the best way to store and distribute hydrogen.
If you look at the Toyota Mirai, it only stores 5 kg of Hydrogen at 10,000 psi, and weighs 87 kgs.
Each kg of gasoline is 18.75% hydrogen by weight, so 27 kg of gasoline contains 5 kg of hydrogen.
This is only about 10 gallons, assuming the tank weighs 10 kg (a bit heavy), that still leave 40 kg for the hydrogen reformer.
So a person can have a hydrogen fuel cell car, that is compatible with existing fuel distribution infrastructure.

bubbabgone · Aug 31, 2016

Nilly said:
Do you have a background in statistics?

Did you know that a sample size of 300 (randomly selected) people is enough to get a max confidence interval of just 7% of a population of 300,000,000 at a 99% confidence level? Do you know how many climate scientists there are? Not 300,000,000.

With Doran, you're right that out of the 10,000 people surveyed, 3000 replied, and only 80 of them had climate change as their primary expertise. I already said that, and it really doesn't bother me, their 95% figure now has a confidence interval of around 11 (I calculate it as 10 but w/e). Whoop de doo. What that means is that given those results, we can be 95% sure (assuming we're at the 95% confidence level) sure that the number of climate scientists that believe that climate change is at least, at least (95% - 11%) = 84%. Still consensus. And that's not a number I've plucked out of thin air, real statistics can show that. Hard math.

As for Andergregg, you can criticize their way of establishing expertise, you could say that the criteria that Andergregg chose for inclusion (X > x number of published papers) is flawed, but so is every other way of ranking expertise. His methodology was based on papers, rather than a questionnaire.

So no, it's not obvious that these factors destroy all the surveys, given that

a) sampling is difficult, particularly in a field as small as 'climate scientists'
b) the number of studies that have come to the same conclusion
c) statements from other scientific bodies of repute (both affirming statements, and the lack of dissenting ones)

Now, I'm not saying the value is necessarily 97%. There are margins of error whenever you sample, and they're drilled into you from your undergrad days. However, I'm not specifically arguing that the number is 97%, I'm arguing that the scientific consensus is there. And the numbers, along with the stances from every national or international organization of repute, are enough to convince me that the scientific consensus is there.

I'll say it for maybe the millionth time now, at this point, you're not even trying to deny climate change, you're trying to poke holes in the methodology used to estimate the number of scientists who think that climate change exists. That's the only laughable thing here.

You're right ... I'm not trying to deny that climate changes. Very few people deny that climate changes. Good enough for you?
That's really not the issue, is it.

Such surveys are used to influence public opinion since that's where livelihoods, money, and political power come from.
Such flawed surveys are meant for persuasion.
How many times have you heard a public figure say "The science is settled." You even hear it here on DP.
They've heard that 97% figure but how many of those public figures do you suppose actually know anything about AGW?
They know all they need to know from those flawed surveys and those responsible for the surveys realize that.
For their purposes such surveys are welcome simplifications, flaws notwithstanding.
Since you bring up denying something, I know that MBH98 has been discredited and it's inherent preposterous lie precipitated the whole thing.
Shouldn't MBH98 have been immediately denied by the scientific community?
Has that gotten a lot of attention?
The "hockey stick" ... now THAT'S laughable.

Good lord this is painful.
You/they can't make assumptions about papers like they did.
You/they can't make exclusions like they did.
You/they can't make selections like they did.
You/they can't assume intentions like they did.
You/they can't assume identical degrees of concern within assumed AGW adherents.
Conclusions drawn from such practices are not products of science but they're presented and accepted by many as though they are.
They actually show position weakness.

Bottom line, the conclusions were pre-determined given how the surveys were constructed.
In essence, it was "Of the scientists who had formed an opinion that humans are responsible for the climate warming trend, 97% believe humans are responsible for the climate warming trend."
Self-fulfilling.
If you're comfortable with a position you shouldn't have to resort to fraudulent practices.

Nilly · Aug 31, 2016

bubbabgone said:
You're right ... I'm not trying to deny that climate changes. Very few people deny that climate changes. Good enough for you?
That's really not the issue, is it.

You know I meant anthropogenic.

bubbabgone said:
Such surveys are used to influence public opinion since that's where livelihoods, money, and political power come from.
Such flawed surveys are meant for persuasion.
How many times have you heard a public figure say "The science is settled." You even hear it here on DP.
They've heard that 97% figure but how many of those public figures do you suppose actually know anything about AGW?
They know all they need to know from those flawed surveys and those responsible for the surveys realize that.
For their purposes such surveys are welcome simplifications, flaws notwithstanding.

We addressed these flaws. They don't concern me. They don't concern the scientific population at large. They don't concern people who have a background in statistics. They concern people who are looking for a reason to deny real science.

bubbabgone said:
Since you bring up denying something, I know that MBH98 has been discredited and it's inherent preposterous lie precipitated the whole thing.
Shouldn't MBH98 have been immediately denied by the scientific community?
Has that gotten a lot of attention?
The "hockey stick" ... now THAT'S laughable.

Both the national academy of scientists and the national science foundation have verified Mann's 1998 and 1999 papers. The criticisms of it came from a crank blogger and an economist. Who's the gullible one of the two of us again?

bubbabgone said:
Good lord this is painful.
You/they can't make assumptions about papers like they did.
You/they can't make exclusions like they did.
You/they can't make selections like they did.
You/they can't assume intentions like they did.
You/they can't assume identical degrees of concern within assumed AGW adherents.
Conclusions drawn from such practices are not products of science but they're presented and accepted by many as though they are.
They actually show position weakness.

Sampling involves compromise. If you have a 1 hour survey you'll only get 10 respondents. 1 climate survey could be wrong, but when you consider that each one consistently has results approaching 100% (as you approach 0 or 100 your confidence intervals decrease - i.e. you're more confident your result is right - even if sample size is small) then sorry but I'm going to put my trust in them over you yelling about random methodology holes that the scientists actually considered. If you've ever sampled before you'll know there are always drawbacks, random vs stratified vs cluster etc, they all have pros and con's. Why? Because sampling, by definition, isn't an exact science, particularly, especially, when the population you're trying to sample is subjective.

bubbabgone said:
Bottom line, the conclusions were pre-determined given how the surveys were constructed.
In essence, it was "Of the scientists who had formed an opinion that humans are responsible for the climate warming trend, 97% believe humans are responsible for the climate warming trend."
Self-fulfilling.
If you're comfortable with a position you shouldn't have to resort to fraudulent practices.

They're not fraudulent practices. All the papers are clear in how they come to their conclusions. You just can't handle that.

Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative — See! The global warming story is falling apart! — to be reinforced by the media. It doesn't matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading "thinkers" in this movement. - Johann Hari

bubbabgone · Aug 31, 2016

Nilly said:
You know I meant anthropogenic.

We addressed these flaws. They don't concern me. They don't concern the scientific population at large. They don't concern people who have a background in statistics. They concern people who are looking for a reason to deny real science.

Both the national academy of scientists and the national science foundation have verified Mann's 1998 and 1999 papers. The criticisms of it came from a crank blogger and an economist. Who's the gullible one of the two of us again?

Sampling involves compromise. If you have a 1 hour survey you'll only get 10 respondents. 1 climate survey could be wrong, but when you consider that each one consistently has results approaching 100% (as you approach 0 or 100 your confidence intervals decrease - i.e. you're more confident your result is right - even if sample size is small) then sorry but I'm going to put my trust in them over you yelling about random methodology holes that the scientists actually considered. If you've ever sampled before you'll know there are always drawbacks, random vs stratified vs cluster etc, they all have pros and con's. Why? Because sampling, by definition, isn't an exact science, particularly, especially, when the population you're trying to sample is subjective.

They're not fraudulent practices. All the papers are clear in how they come to their conclusions. You just can't handle that.

I believe one of your own links the other day noted that Mann's conclusions were wrong mainly due to his use of proxies.
That's pretty common knowledge.
It was the only way Mann could get rid of the MWP and LIA while still conjuring up the blade.

Of course they're fraudulent practices. And they sure are clear.
It's like surveying Federal Government employees about Barack Obama's popularity but include only the White House staff who is currently employed there who naturally speak well of him.
All reasonable because they would know the most about him, being so close to him every day.
Then concluding that everyone loves Barack Obama.

Threegoofs · Aug 31, 2016

bubbabgone said:
I believe one of your own links the other day noted that Mann's conclusions were wrong mainly due to his use of proxies.
That's pretty common knowledge.
It was the only way Mann could get rid of the MWP and LIA while still conjuring up the blade.

Of course they're fraudulent practices. And they sure are clear.
It's like surveying Federal Government employees about Barack Obama's popularity but include only the White House staff who is currently employed there who naturally speak well of him.
All reasonable because they would know the most about him, being so close to him every day.
Then concluding that everyone loves Barack Obama.

Once again, Manns basic findings have been replicated dozens of times, with different methods and expanded globally.

The only one who thinks he's discredited is you and your merry band of deniers.

LetsGoBrandon · Aug 31, 2016

Helix said:
agree on that one. i see addressing climate change as a side benefit to doing what we should have done after the oil crisis in the 1970s. plus, it just makes sense to accept that we didn't reach the pinnacle of energy tech in the nineteenth century. we might disagree that some climate change is absolutely being caused by spewing too much carbon into the atmosphere,

Just to clarify my position. While I do not believe man has any effect on climate change, I do accept that man is capable of short term poisoning of the atmosphere that we breath and the water that we drink, etc. That is why I mentioned Los Angeles. Los Angeles basically sits in a bowl of mountains and automobile pollution does not disperse rapidly unless the Santa Ana winds pick up.

but honestly, it hardly matters if we agree that we ought to be doing something about the current energy model.

Agreed. However it does not tend to produce viable results overnight. In the 1980s, on work related field trips, I visited a experimental nuclear fusion reactor site and an experimental solar power plant. There is at this point still no major breakthrough on nuclear fusion, and while the solar power plant I visited could provide power for a city of maybe 10,000 residents, it's still not practical.

i support cutting red tape and building nuclear power plants regardless of NIMBY crap. from what i've read, thorium looks like the best option. if we can send a man to the moon with less than the computing power of a modern graphing calculator, i'm sure that we can figure out a way to build nuclear power plants that don't melt down in the 21st century.

On the power plants, the moonshot that you speak of should go towards nuclear fusion. if we ever get there, there will not be the meltdown issue or the radiocative waste. The worst that can hapopen is a hydrogen explosion that would be contained at the plant.

not every problem is Hitler, nor is every conflict WWII. i believe that WWII was a war that we couldn't stay out of (although it was a direct result of WWI, a war which should have been avoided,) and the domestic population sacrificed significantly to achieve victory. i don't believe that IS is a similar situation, and those who do aren't willing to pay a penny more in taxes to fund it. i support withdrawing troops from the region and getting off of oil as quickly as possible. if you really want to defeat IS, remove their cash cow.

With a much earlier intervention in the lead up to WW2, the world would not have had much of a hitler problem. Hitler's march toward domination could haver been stopped long before it became a world war. Saddam Hussein also had to be stopped....at least in the 1991 conflict where he overran Kuwait and lined his forces up on the Saudi border. While we can disagree on whether the 2003 invasion was necessary, the 1991 invasion certainly was. Without the alternative fuels you and i both desire, oil is still the lifeblood of most of the world's economies. If Saddam had gained control of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's oil fields he would have controlled roughly half of the world's known oil reserves at the time, he could have wrecked the economies of most of the free world on a whim.

LetsGoBrandon · Aug 31, 2016

Nilly said:
I already explained to you that global cooling was blown out of proportion by the media, not scientists. The majority of peer reviewed papers predicted warming. The sample size is small, as climate change wasn't as big of a topic back then, but the actual scientific consensus always was more towards warming than cooling. So science didn't crash and burn.

Read the following climate hysteria timeline.

https://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

Hysteria seems to translate into grant funding. That is really what feeds the man-caused climate change quackery.

LetsGoBrandon · Aug 31, 2016

longview said:
The point is that millions of cars are on the road, and paid for, and people are familiar with how to fill them up.
Storing the energy in a form that is compatible with existing infrastructure and demand,
will come before everyone is driving a different type of car and filling up at a different style of pump.
It may well turn out that one of the existing hydrocarbon fuels is the best way to store and distribute hydrogen.
If you look at the Toyota Mirai, it only stores 5 kg of Hydrogen at 10,000 psi, and weighs 87 kgs.
Each kg of gasoline is 18.75% hydrogen by weight, so 27 kg of gasoline contains 5 kg of hydrogen.
This is only about 10 gallons, assuming the tank weighs 10 kg (a bit heavy), that still leave 40 kg for the hydrogen reformer.
So a person can have a hydrogen fuel cell car, that is compatible with existing fuel distribution infrastructure.

But then most cannot afford a new Toyota Mirai or a Prius.. Perhaps there is a breakthrough:

Forbes Welcome

longview · Sep 1, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
But then most cannot afford a new Toyota Mirai or a Prius.. Perhaps there is a breakthrough:

Forbes Welcome

It would not matter, there are only a small number of hydrogen filling stations, and it will take years to change that.
What I am saying is the benefits of hydrogen fuel cell technology could be realized by using existing fuel as the hydrogen container.

Russell797 · Sep 1, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
But then most cannot afford a new Toyota Mirai or a Prius.. Perhaps there is a breakthrough:

Forbes Welcome

The breakthrough is called economy of scale.

Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern?

Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern?

Yes

No

More options

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

Helix

Nilly

stb

bubbabgone

Nilly

stb

longview

bubbabgone

Nilly

stb

bubbabgone

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

longview

Russell797