Are you being cheated at the pump?

GIo you are correct, forest management is a big part of the spread of fires.. dead bushes equals fuel.. pretty simple..

You wouldn’t have the massive fires if they did the proper maintenance of the under brush ..
are you saying if it’s left unchecked that it had no affect?
Are you saying that people have no affect on the root causes as in arson? Is that what you are saying?

You can try to dismiss what I say but that doesn’t make it a fact..

Next is that most of the fires are started by man whether it’s by the igniting it on fire or accident or the power lines causing the others.
I agree it is a man made problem but o choose not to ignore that portion of it..

I live in the desert and dirt doesn’t burn .. but we ingest the fires smoke from California and I think they should tax all Californians for polluting the air because of poor management ..
Again I choose not to ignore that part of it..

Maybe we need more people so we have less trees?(Sarc for those that don’t get it).
 

Attachments

  • 68F7D2E6-8EF9-4C5B-B912-254FF8B6FE85.png
    68F7D2E6-8EF9-4C5B-B912-254FF8B6FE85.png
    353.7 KB · Views: 169
Last edited:
GIo you are correct, forest management is a big part of the spread of fires.. dead bushes equals fuel.. pretty simple..

You wouldn’t have the massive fires if they did the proper maintenance of the under brush ..
are you saying if it’s left unchecked that it had no affect?
Are you saying that people have no affect on the root causes as in arson? Is that what you are saying?

You can try to dismiss what I say but that doesn’t make it a fact..

Next is that most of the fires are started by man whether it’s by the igniting it on fire or accident or the power lines causing the others.
I agree it is a man made problem but o choose not to ignore that portion of it..

I live in the desert and dirt doesn’t burn .. but we ingest the fires smoke from California and I think they should tax all Californians for polluting the air because of poor management ..
Again I choose not to ignore that part of it..

Maybe we need more people so we have less trees?(Sarc for those that don’t get it).
So only fix the minor causes 👍
 
Interesting article from 17


Since some won’t read it.. and skip the info as it might go against there thinking

Side not from the article

California wildfire data reviewed by a USGS research ecologist shows a trend that many may find hard to believe: Since a peak in 1980, there have been fewer and fewer wildfires in California. This is true across the entire state, according to researcher Jon Keeley, who is also a professor at UCLA.
 
Last edited:
Not what I’m saying. Everyone acts as if the changing of weather is the only and root cause and anyone that says anything contrary is talked to as a denier of climate.. I believe in climate just not to the extreme all others do.

I try not to worry about the things I have no control over. You might say you can make a difference!! Well not really.. until the world gets China and India under control.. you are spitting in the wind. So yes I say you won’t make a difference because you can’t overcome the pollution by those two countries .. even if everyone else followed the rules..

So in the end I will enjoy life and enjoy the things I have .. I won’t be giving up meat for salads and when I am dead and gone it won’t be an issue for me at all..

Call it what you want but that is a reality. So choose your battles accordingly .. now if and when Russia drops a nuke maybe you or everyone else can work real hard at just surviving and then you will understand life is to short .

I won’t push my beliefs on anyone and in the end I will respect how you guys feel.. but if that respect is crossed then we’ll ..

But I respect everyone opinion because at the end we are only as smart as we think we are. Science is ever changing and so comes the global cooling period as we are slipping out of the last warmer period the world has been in for about 500 years.. so yes climate is changing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And to add what I have seen in regards to how the politicians have politicized the issue and stolen the money from the middle class and given it away to there friends and families also other countries.. it’s a redistribution if wealth is all it comes down to.

If it was such a crises why did Germany back out of the Paris climate agreement? Because it was to costly! Can’t put a price on protection from extinction .. when the USA backed out then the decided it wasn’t worth it because it was to expensive.

Perspective I guess but taxes have been taken and thrown into friends and families pockets of the people around the world.. look at the list of Obama’s failures in that area I posted above.. think what you want but a scam is a scam.
Why would Obama buy 2 properties @ zero sea level? If he was worried about it.. ? Why? Because he doesn’t believe it, that’s why.
 
I've heard that perspective from lots of people, that "unless China and India reduce their pollution, nothing I can do makes a difference."

Well, think about the big European car companies who circumvented the pollution standards for years. The carbon monoxide levels and heavy metals levels could have been less for all those years. And you may say, as my VW diesel owning Republican husband did, that unless China and India reduce their levels, nothing the car manufacturers do can make a difference. But, as I pointed out, those vehicles were kicking out as much as 40x the allowed levels, everyday, right there at street level. They measured the pollution levels at street level kindergartens and childcare establishments in Berlin, and found them to be way high. That is affecting those kids' brains and health in the here and now - - not the manufacturing effluence in Guangdong or Delhi.

When an old car goes by you, one that doesn't have the pollution control devices on it that are standard now, you smell it, don't you? Regardless of what is happening in Asia or Europe or Caracas or wherever, you are breathing that poison in the here and now. It is in your lungs. So it behooves us all to reduce pollution wherever we are.

My husband was idling his VW diesel bomb as he loaded it up. I said, "Bill! 40 cars are idling in my woods!" He turned it off. He has since replaced his diesel vehicles with gas and will eventually get a hybrid or an all electric.

Whenever I hear that idea, that we don't need to do anything because somebody else is a worse offender, ("Yeah, but what about so'n'so?!"), what I hear is the defensiveness of a little boy making excuses to his mama, getting all wound up in fending off blame, when we are way past blame time in the climate emergency. It's not about blame. It's about doing what we can, in the here and now.
 
I understand what you are saying and to that I would say diesel is cleaner burning than any gas motor .. I’ve seen new cars have the same smoke..

Most cars are new they are on the streets now vs back in the 90’s.. so they are cleaner now than ever..

Your electric car is as bad for the environment if not worse than any other car produced.. when you charge it you get the power from the coal production and it is no more environmentally safe than anything else..

Here is a text I received.. not sure how correct it is but I’ll leave it for you all they are more environmentally concerned but if true then that makes all of you hypocrites ..

Here we go!!!


My good friend who is much smarter than I forwarded this to me to share with you. It’s the most incredible breakdown of energy costs I’ve ever read. It’s a bit long, but also the most detailed explanation I’ve seen.
___________________________
Batteries

What is a battery?’ I think Tesla said it best when they called it an Energy Storage System. That’s important.

They do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”

Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.

But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.”

Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject.

In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.

The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.

Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beans is also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”

Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”

I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent. “Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal and are easily espoused, catchy buzz words, but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye, for sure.

If I had entitled this essay “The Embedded Costs of Going Green,” who would have read it? But thank you for your attention, and good luck.

Our flag does not fly because the wind moves it; it flies with the last breath of each soldier/sailor/Marine/airman who died to protect it
 
I've heard that perspective from lots of people, that "unless China and India reduce their pollution, nothing I can do makes a difference."

Well, think about the big European car companies who circumvented the pollution standards for years. The carbon monoxide levels and heavy metals levels could have been less for all those years. And you may say, as my VW diesel owning Republican husband did, that unless China and India reduce their levels, nothing the car manufacturers do can make a difference. But, as I pointed out, those vehicles were kicking out as much as 40x the allowed levels, everyday, right there at street level. They measured the pollution levels at street level kindergartens and childcare establishments in Berlin, and found them to be way high. That is affecting those kids' brains and health in the here and now - - not the manufacturing effluence in Guangdong or Delhi.

When an old car goes by you, one that doesn't have the pollution control devices on it that are standard now, you smell it, don't you? Regardless of what is happening in Asia or Europe or Caracas or wherever, you are breathing that poison in the here and now. It is in your lungs. So it behooves us all to reduce pollution wherever we are.

My husband was idling his VW diesel bomb as he loaded it up. I said, "Bill! 40 cars are idling in my woods!" He turned it off. He has since replaced his diesel vehicles with gas and will eventually get a hybrid or an all electric.

Whenever I hear that idea, that we don't need to do anything because somebody else is a worse offender, ("Yeah, but what about so'n'so?!"), what I hear is the defensiveness of a little boy making excuses to his mama, getting all wound up in fending off blame, when we are way past blame time in the climate emergency. It's not about blame. It's about doing what we can, in the here and now.
Exactly my argument.
I could care less about all the contributing factors to air pollution, forest fires, sea level rise, ocean acidification, or any of the other effects of climate change whether real or perceived.
The burning of fossil fuels knowing what we do is unsustainable, irresponsible and irrational. We have more than enough information to realize that we are killing everything.
Take a trip to the wilderness and you quickly see the difference.
I would love to be able to experienced the environment of a few hundred years ago.
 
Well, DavidRvR, we can only do what we can do. And if we all did what we could, we'd all be doing the needful, instead of leaving it for someone else to deal with. Gotta start somewhere.

And I do think about the cobalt and the Xinjiang slave labor, etc etc. It is confounding. The fact is that there are just too many of us humans, and we won't work together to do the needful.

Which is why I work to save forests and plant trees. Humans are doomed.

(And, just for accuracy, where we live, our electricity comes mostly from Hydroelectric sources.)
 
Chez I agree.. we camp and we clean up others messes.. we do our part. I don’t spend my time looking for issues as there is enough in just normal life. So some do things that others don’t see but people pre judge because we don’t do it the way son think it should..

At the end of the day most of it is opinion but again I’d challenge someone that Truly believes in the green tech to prove maybe it’s not correct? Because if it is that is pretty damning.. to those believers
And I want to believe it isn’t correct.. because if it is then it just causes more animosity towards the topic .
 
I understand what you are saying and to that I would say diesel is cleaner burning than any gas motor .. I’ve seen new cars have the same smoke..

Most cars are new they are on the streets now vs back in the 90’s.. so they are cleaner now than ever..

Your electric car is as bad for the environment if not worse than any other car produced.. when you charge it you get the power from the coal production and it is no more environmentally safe than anything else..

Here is a text I received.. not sure how correct it is but I’ll leave it for you all they are more environmentally concerned but if true then that makes all of you hypocrites ..

Here we go!!!


My good friend who is much smarter than I forwarded this to me to share with you. It’s the most incredible breakdown of energy costs I’ve ever read. It’s a bit long, but also the most detailed explanation I’ve seen.
___________________________
Batteries

What is a battery?’ I think Tesla said it best when they called it an Energy Storage System. That’s important.

They do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?”

Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.

But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.”

Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject.

In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.

The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.

Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beans is also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car.

A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just – one – battery.”

Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”

I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.

There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent. “Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal and are easily espoused, catchy buzz words, but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye, for sure.

If I had entitled this essay “The Embedded Costs of Going Green,” who would have read it? But thank you for your attention, and good luck.

Our flag does not fly because the wind moves it; it flies with the last breath of each soldier/sailor/Marine/airman who died to protect it


This article has a TON of false assumptions and obsolete info ! I don't have the time to list th and do an edit of the article but read it with caution.
The tech is evolving very rapidly and aoon the oil will stay where it is- in the ground , well beneath the surface .....

I just completed mile 16222 on my ebike , saved about 16222:1.25$(Uber rates per mile) =12.997$-200$(chain and brake pads) , saved over 12.797$ !!! That math is all you need to know, and the big savings applies to electric cars as well . As we speak the gas is 9$ in Eu and 7$ in California...
 
This article has a TON of false assumptions and obsolete info ! I don't have the time to list th and do an edit of the article but read it with caution.
The tech is evolving very rapidly and aoon the oil will stay where it is- in the ground , well beneath the surface .....

I just completed mile 16222 on my ebike , saved about 16222:1.25$(Uber rates per mile) =12.997$-200$(chain and brake pads) , saved over 12.797$ !!! That math is all you need to know, and the big savings applies to electric cars as well . As we speak the gas is 9$ in Eu and 7$ in California...
Ill hold tight for some specifics. Education is the key (as they say). It always seems the typical response is "That's not true" or " that is misinformation" but never anything to show otherwise.

I would appreciate something to show for it. Sometime "Why" is a very important question to learning.
 
I gave a pre Curser explaining it wasnt mine.. Copy and paste would seem understandable. Now if someone has specifics as to why its not correct and can post something? Anything? Besides the same I always see " thats wrong or thats not correct or I can copy and paste to" but No one ever posts anything to explain why Besides some Sugar coated feeling.


This is one of my problem with These type of Posts. No substance to refute.

Its a learning process for everyone I think as I dont just take anyone word for anything.. My mom told me a long time ago... Dont believe anything you hear and half of what you see... its worked well so far.
 
I gave a pre Curser explaining it wasnt mine
yes , i know, no fault with that but anything longer then 3-4 lines of texts it's a waste of time...we hardly rmbr. 10% of what we read. u just hv. 2 trust my opinion, c my looooooong history.4lines.Done
 
yes , i know, no fault with that but anything longer then 3-4 lines of texts it's a waste of time...we hardly rmbr. 10% of what we read. u just hv. 2 trust my opinion, c my looooooong history.4lines.Done
As Ive beeen Toold Heeere "OOOhh K"

You know what they say about people who say "Trust me".

.Gov website as you can trust them as THEY say


As with all energy supply options, wind energy can have adverse environmental impacts, including the potential to reduce, fragment, or degrade habitat for wildlife, fish, and plants. Furthermore, spinning turbine blades can pose a threat to flying wildlife like birds and bats

Seems there is a cost So at the end of the day it must be worth it to have it and the continual cost of wildlife.
 
Last edited:
So David, you are saying "Damned if we do, damned if we don't, so damned if I will"? That does nothing. Clearly we cannot continue as we are doing, so a change is worth a shot. The attitude that "it ain't perfect so it won't help" is just lame.
 
What I am saying is Environmentalists say that its GREEN and better for the Environment. But with the upfront and continual costs ? is it? This is the subject none discuss. They get on their soap boxes and Proclaim this is the savior of the world but really it isnt. There is an inherent cost associated with it and its continual use that we never discuss and it is never mentioned. Why? because it goes against the Prime thinking

So NO its not GREEN and its not safe or good for the environment as I see it but I am looking at the cost (overall).

Now the Solar panels have the same problem and more.. Same conversation that is not happening. They are not Efficient at all.. Tech just isnt there yet.. Should we try? YEs I believe we should but to roll out this stuff to early and we will be living in the stone ages again as it will be a cataclysmic failure. All the GREEN that has been implemented in California and they still have Brown outs.. and worse.

Again its not good for the environment and to say it is isnt TRUE.

That is my point.

Edit a question.. Again why would Obama but 2 house next to the water(sea levels are rising?). Not sure if I believed in all the hype I would be buying on the beach? Maybe he said it because he wanted a discount on the property or doesnt want neighbors.. Certainly he didnt buy those places because he believes the hype.
 
Last edited:
Back