I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, twa said:

https://stopthesethings.com/2019/01/06/germanys-renewable-energy-fail-german-co2-emissions-10-times-higher-than-nuclear-powered-france/

Germany’s Renewable Energy Fail: German CO2 Emissions 10 Times Higher than Nuclear-Powered France

 

 

I'd love to see the math that lead to that conclusion, which is actually noticeably missing from your link.  (Germany's CO2 output is less than 2X France's, and they have a larger population, country, and GDP.)

 

Energy generated from alternatives in France and Germany as a percent of energy used are pretty much equivalent.

 

 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-targets

 

And again, despite your initial implication, Germany is not bringing in large amounts of "dirty" energy from other countries.  It is a net energy exporter, and much of what it does import, it imports from heavily nuclear France.

 

In terms of costs, the costs of nuclear power even in France, are misleading because they aren't paying for long term storage of waste.  France has spent billions of dollars studying how to store waste (not paid through electricity taxes/fees, but the general fund) to come up with a plan to have people question whether it is valid.  And the cost of building the thing where they would store the waste under the plan was estimated $25 billion euros, and that's just for the building not the long term upkeep, maintenance, monitoring etc.

 

When you take into the long term costs of waste storage the economics of nuclear power changes greatly.  Currently, France is generating energy using a method that they have no idea what the real long term costs are, but they certainly aren't paying it.  There is no fund in France (or anywhere else in the world) where governments or companies are saving money to deal with the long term costs of waste from nuclear power.

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

they are comparing CO2 from ELECTRICITY generation

 

https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-frances-2016

 

what are the long term waste costs/impacts from solar and wind?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#68d21d81121c

 

[twa]

9 hours ago, Larry said:

Oh, no. You mean Germany's energy system (which you are trying to paint as a failure) is producing so much surplus energy that their neighbors are afraid that their networks can't tolerate the electricity?

 

a good explanation on the issues

 

 if you need to cut off large consumers routinely you are failing.

 

if you spend billions and get higher bills and only reduce emissions cause of weather and people reducing use because of costs you are failing

 

https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/germanys-green-transition-has-hit-brick-wall

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, twa said:

I'm fine with Germany to keep burning Texas wood while wrapping themselves in green. .....not like I have to pay for it.

 

btw, the neighbors are setting up roadblocks to Germany dumping energy to save their systems

 

 

 

 

 

Good God man, did you have a let me find whatever junk I can on the internet and post it night?  PTS's are becoming a component of a modern grid anywhere in the world.  The electric grids of Europe were not connected until relatively recently and so in most cases are only connected in a few key places.  If the Netherlands didn't want German electricity flowing into their grid, they could just disconnect the few places where they are connected.

 

You know where else they use PTS' on the French/Spanish border, the Belgium and Netherlands border, in the US, and yes, in the UK (though they call them quad boosters).

 

http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/8E11298367DF412AC1256F880030299B.aspx

https://www.tdworld.com/overhead-transmission/nation-s-largest-phase-shifting-transformer-takes-residence-monticello

 

https://innovation.ukpowernetworks.co.uk/innovation/en/Projects/tier-2-projects/Flexible-Plug-and-Play-(FPP)/Project-Documents/TechCon-Asia-Pacific-2013-Quadrature-booster-full-paper.pdf

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

they are comparing CO2 from ELECTRICITY generation

 

https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/germanys-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-frances-2016

 

what are the long term waste costs/impacts from solar and wind?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#68d21d81121c

 

 

You've cited the same thing from a different source that still gives no way of knowing how they've generated their numbers (from a pro-nuclear group).  Germany isn't generating that much less CO2 than France through other non-electrical production or using that less electricity than France (electrical consumption per a person is about the same in both countries) for that math to work out.  German cars are not putting out that much less CO2 then French cars that Germany is generating 10X as much CO2 for electricity, but per a GDP or per a person the two countries are very close to the same in terms of over all CO2 production.

 

The same thing applies as I stated before.  Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  Linking from a different source (that is admittedly pro-nuclear) doesn't change anything.  

 

As stated at your link, the key is recycling and cleaning are possible.  That isn't possible with waste from nuclear reactors.

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

a good explanation on the issues

 

 if you need to cut off large consumers routinely you are failing.

 

if you spend billions and get higher bills and only reduce emissions cause of weather and people reducing use because of costs you are failing

 

https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/germanys-green-transition-has-hit-brick-wall

 

They are generating more electricity every year from alternatives.  Germany has not only prioritized reducing CO2 emissions, but also eliminating nuclear power.  That they've been able to eliminate some of their nuclear power plants and not see increases in emissions is significant.

 

Emissions other years were down too.  Emissions since 1990, total, per GDP, or per capita are down.  You are looking at one year and nobody is saying those are the only 2 reasons (again energy generated from alternatives were up).  And energy generated from the high CO2 emitting coal sources are down.

 

Germany needs to do some work to update their grid (as does essentially every western country), and more work has to be done on storage/transmission (and as I've already state the costs of home solar batteries if falling, expected to fall more, and Germany is heavily moving in that direction.  Couple that with plug in electrics, you get even more storage and flexibility, which will help even out their supply/demand issues, while diminishing CO2 output.

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

They are calculating from each kilowatt generated....the only true apples to apples on electric generation ,not per capita or gdp

 

https://medium.com/third-way/france-germany-and-two-paths-to-cut-carbon-85b65090fc96

 

Germany also uses much dirtier and inefficient lignite coal which means more CO2

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, twa said:

They are calculating from each kilowatt generated....the only true apples to apples on electric generation ,not per capita or gdp

 

https://medium.com/third-way/france-germany-and-two-paths-to-cut-carbon-85b65090fc96

 

Germany also uses much dirtier and inefficient lignite coal which means more CO2

 

Is it possible for you to post something that doesn't contain clear fallacies on the topic?

 

"The results are stark. German policymakers have quietly started to acknowledge that continued reliance on coal will prevent the country from meeting its emissions targets. Meanwhile, France is on track to hit its own targets, and is setting its sights on the complete elimination of coal-fired power."

 

France isn't on target to hit its emission standards.  They've had years where CO2 emissions where supposed to go down and went up and because of that are having to change their emission targets.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-carbon-emissions/france-to-revise-carbon-emissions-target-after-missing-2016-goal-idUSKBN1FB2W0

 

And it isn't like your link is old.  It is just wrong.

 

Though, yes everybody admits that if Germany had maintained their nuclear output, in terms of CO2 production, they'd be better off.  I've already said they have 2 priorities.  

 

From there, your most recent link doesn't actually address your point about 10X more CO2 per electric production.  Yes, Germany is generating more electricity from coal, which tends to generate more CO2, but it isn't like the number for France is 0.

 

Here's what I know:

 

1.  Germany generates slightly more electricity than France (which your link supports).

2.  Per a person, Germany uses slightly less electricity than France.

3.  But Germany has more people.

 

(those ideas are consistent with one another)

 

Germany has less than double the total of emissions of France (not correcting for GDP or per capita).  German cars are not massively more efficient than French cars, etc.  Unless there is something odd with the math it is hard to reconcile those things with Germany is generating 10X more CO2 to generate electricity than France.  You don't generate slightly more electricity than another country have less than 2X the CO2 emissions than the other country, but use 10X more CO2 to generate electricity unless something odd is happening.

 

Lastly, if what you are concerned about is CO2 emissions than consuming less energy per a person is a valid way to cut emissions.  Saying all that matters is CO2 generated per a kwh ignores that.  Conservation matters and helps.

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

21 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Is it possible for you to post something that doesn't contain clear fallacies on the topic?

 

"The results are stark. German policymakers have quietly started to acknowledge that continued reliance on coal will prevent the country from meeting its emissions targets. Meanwhile, France is on track to hit its own targets, and is setting its sights on the complete elimination of coal-fired power."

 

France isn't on target to hit its emission standards.  They've had years where CO2 emissions where supposed to go down and went up and because of that are having to change their emission targets.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-carbon-emissions/france-to-revise-carbon-emissions-target-after-missing-2016-goal-idUSKBN1FB2W0

 

And it isn't like your link is old.  It is just wrong.

 

Didn't their statement address the LONG term not short?

 

Germany will likely hit neither long or short w/o corrections

Quote

Just last week, German leaders acknowledged that the nation will miss its 2020 emissions target by a wide margin and is several years behind schedule at best. Without the nuclear phase-out, Germany would have likely met or surpassed this target. In the end, Germany sacrificed its climate agenda in order to fulfill its anti-nuclear agenda.

 

 

31 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

From there, your most recent link doesn't actually address your point about 10X more CO2 per electric production.  Yes, Germany is generating more electricity from coal, which tends to generate more CO2, but it isn't like the number for France is 0.

 

Germany uses hard coal, which is much more efficient and clean

 

32 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Here's what I know:

 

1.  Germany generates slightly more electricity than France (which your link supports).

2.  Per a person, Germany uses slightly less electricity than France.

3.  But Germany has more people.

 

(those ideas are consistent with one another)

 

2. per person is a poor measure imo, Germany generates AND load sheds a lot of electricity at peaks,which is a problem

 

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Germany has less than double the total of emissions of France (not correcting for GDP or per capita).  German cars are not massively more efficient than French cars, etc.  Unless there is something odd with the math it is hard to reconcile those things with Germany is generating 10X more CO2 to generate electricity than France.

 

Lastly, if what you are concerned about is CO2 emissions than consuming less energy per a person is a valid way to cut emissions.  Saying all that matters is CO2 generated per a kwh ignores that.  Conservation matters and helps.

 

why it is odd is Germany has to keep the dirty lignite coal generation plants(that put out a lot more CO2 than French coal plants) spinning to both keep the system from brownouts and satisfy the regions profiting from domestic lignite.....while dumping excess power from wind/ solar production peaks to other countries.

 

I do not see the German plan as sensible conservation, no more than celebrating economically forcing people to go steal wood to burn to keep warm because of high electric bills.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html

Nor do I see Germany buying wood here to ship there to burn as conservation.....but the money is always welcome.

 

Texas has a lot of wind power, but instead of the German plan we use fast starting NG plants to level out the erratic nature of wind production.

 

 

[PeterMP]

57 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Didn't their statement address the LONG term not short?

 

Germany will likely hit neither long or short w/o corrections

 

 

 

Germany uses hard coal, which is much more efficient and clean

 

 

2. per person is a poor measure imo, Germany generates AND load sheds a lot of electricity at peaks,which is a problem

 

 

why it is odd is Germany has to keep the dirty lignite coal generation plants(that put out a lot more CO2 than French coal plants) spinning to both keep the system from brownouts and satisfy the regions profiting from domestic lignite.....while dumping excess power from wind/ solar production peaks to other countries.

 

I do not see the German plan as sensible conservation, no more than celebrating economically forcing people to go steal wood to burn to keep warm because of high electric bills.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/tree-theft-on-the-rise-in-germany-as-heating-costs-increase-a-878013.html

Nor do I see Germany buying wood here to ship there to burn as conservation.....but the money is always welcome.

 

Texas has a lot of wind power, but instead of the German plan we use fast starting NG plants to level out the erratic nature of wind production.

 

 

 

You can't miss your short term targets and be on pace to hit your long term targets.  France isn't on target to hit its long term targets without adjustments because it missed its short term targets.  Germany has plans to phase out coal plants.

 

Germany has been closing coal mines:

 

http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/

 

Which makes it politically easier for them end coal power and they are making plans to eliminate coal power:

 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-coal-exit-commission

https://www.power-technology.com/news/vattenfall-coal-power-plants/

 

By sort of nebulous long term goals with no good idea of how they are going to achieve them, Germany is in as good a shape as France.

 

I talked about absolute numbers.  Germany generates slightly more electricity than France.  It has less than 2X the total CO2 emissions as France.

 

You don't generate more electricity, have only 2X the CO2 emissions if it is taking you 10X more CO2 to generate a kwh of electricity.

Also, France dumps plenty of power during non-peak demand time.  A lot electricity during non-peak time actually flows from France through Germany to Poland in times of low demand because you don't just turn down a nuclear reactor.  To meet peak demand France generates more electricity than they need.

 

Electricity prices in Germany have stabilized over the last few years (and even gone down some) and:

 

 

I missed Germany in the list.

 

https://energytransition.org/2015/03/germany-is-not-burning-us-forests/

 

You've been posting the same stuff here for years.  You need some more material. 

 

Germany also has fast start natural gas plants (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/irsching/) and has increased its use of natural gas to generate electricity, but as anybody that pays attention knows Germany also has issues with getting natural gas that has minimized their adoption of natural gas.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/07/19/how-dependent-is-germany-on-russian-gas/#42be58b93b48

 

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

Germany has missed short term goals as well, and is in a worse position to correct them with the wall issue.

 

https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/germanys-green-transition-has-hit-brick-wall

 

I may be mistaken on Germany burning it, but we certainly ship a ****load of Texas mesquite to German ports.

 

We are expanding LNG we can ship to them as well if that Russia thing becomes a problem

 

[PeterMP]

53 minutes ago, twa said:

Germany has missed short term goals as well, and is in a worse position to correct them with the wall issue.

 

https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/germanys-green-transition-has-hit-brick-wall

 

I may be mistaken on Germany burning it, but we certainly ship a ****load of Texas mesquite to German ports.

 

We are expanding LNG we can ship to them as well if that Russia thing becomes a problem

 

 

The fact that Germany has done as well as they have with alternatives despite being so poorly geographically situated for altetnatives is one reason people like to talk about Germany.

 

The path forward for Germany is clear.

 

Do more to couple roof top solar with home batteries (whose prices have come down a lot).

 

Reduce coal use.  Diversification of the NG market through things like shipped LNG will help with that.

 

Update their electric grid to transport energy to high demand areas from high producing areas, especially for wind.

 

Establish long term storage options.

 

I am not sure how anything related to Germany is not relevant to France.

 

Demand is tied to weather so every country has issues with that.  When it gets extremely cold, France cannot meet demand and has to import from other places- including Germany.

 

On the other hand, during low demand they can generate too much electricity-  they sometimes shut down nuclear plants like Germany does for solar or wind.

 

Other than progress on storing energy thst they can couple with their nuclear plants so they can optomize their use of nuclear energy, there is not much more France can do in terms of cutting emissions with respect to electricity hat makes sense.  It certaily does not make sense to build greater nuclear capacity (as a function of consumption).

 

Essentially the same wall exist for France (and every country trying to cut emissions.)

 

(The big thing for both has to be transportation and somehow coupling that demand so that it is at a different than current electrical peak demand )

Edited January 18, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

Local generation by fuel cells seems a better fit than solar and battery in Germany, but you are right that upgrading the grid to get that wind from the North to the South will help.....and be expensive

[twa]

 

 

On 1/18/2019 at 4:12 PM, PeterMP said:

 

The fact that Germany has done as well as they have with alternatives despite being so poorly geographically situated for altetnatives is one reason people like to talk about Germany.

 

The path forward for Germany is clear.

 

 

 

The path seems less clear to some Germans ...but what do they know. 

 

 

Quote

 

Overrun by 30,000 wind turbines, rural Germans are on the brink of revolt, with over 1,000 groups determined to win back their heartland.

Dwarfed by 200m, 300 tonne behemoths, driven mad by practically incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound, or driven from their homes, tens of thousands of Germans have had enough.

One of the largest and best organised of Germany’s community defenders is Vernunftkraft, a group headed up by ecologists, engineers and economists, many of whom are professors tenured at Germany’s universities. These people are organised; these people are angry.

https://stopthesethings.com/2019/01/20/people-power-german-professors-lead-1000-anti-wind-industry-groups-in-assault-on-toxic-wind-power/

 

 

 

Quote

 

The World Health Organization has declared that wind turbine noise is a serious health hazard, now German research gets to the heart of the matter.

Delingpole: Wind Turbines Can Harm Heart, Says German Professor
Breitbart
James Delingpole
1 November 2018

Wind turbines are terrible for the health of the millions of birds and bats they slice and dice every year – and they’re not much good for humans either: they can even stop your heart working properly.

This was the conclusion of an experiment conducted recently by a medical team in Mainz, Germany, led by Professor Christian-Friedrich Vahl.

https://stopthesethings.com/2018/11/10/heart-stopping-german-research-finds-low-frequency-wind-turbine-noise-infrasound-cardiac-health-risk/

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by twa

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

 

 

The path seems less clear to some Germans ...but what do they know. 

 

You keep citing the same garbage sources you did before.   I can't find what you are citing in any scientific journal, and there people have looked at the relationship with actual human health in terms of blood pressure and cortisone levels and there does not appear to be a relationship.

 

It certainly appears all you are doing is spreading misinformation.  Your posts are garbage.  WHO generally finds that noise is bad, including noise from traffic and airports.

 

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/383921/noise-guidelines-eng.pdf

 

They make the same recommendations for traffic and airports as wind turbines.  If this report is a big issue for wind turbines, then it is also a huge issue for auto and plane manufactures and airports.

 

Cars, planes, and trains all generate infrasound.  If infrasound in general has significant human health affects, we need to think our whole modern world (and I can't find anybody that has looked, but I suspect so do other types of power plants).
 

Here's an actual poll of Germans:

 

"68 percent of those asked said they would agree to the construction of wind farms near their home, while 29 percent would object. "

 

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/polls-reveal-citizens-support-energiewende

 

And yes 29% object, but you'd get worse or comparable numbers for essentially anything else (e.g. highways,  an airport, nuclear or gas powered plants).

 

And 92% say the continued expansion of renewables is important or very important to them.  That's an overwhelming number.

 

Have some integrity and practice some personal responsibility and stop posting garbage from garbage sources.

Edited January 20, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

36 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

Have some integrity and practice some personal responsibility and stop posting garbage from sources.

 

define integrity?

 

Lysenkoism and Climate Science Heresy

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lysenkoism-and-climate-science-heresy/

 

https://www.allgemeine-zeitung.de/lokales/mainz/nachrichten-mainz/windkraft-storsender-furs-herz-mainzer-forscher-untersuchen-folgen-des-infraschalls_18566513#

 

[PeterMP]

54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

define integrity?

 

Lysenkoism and Climate Science Heresy

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lysenkoism-and-climate-science-heresy/

 

https://www.allgemeine-zeitung.de/lokales/mainz/nachrichten-mainz/windkraft-storsender-furs-herz-mainzer-forscher-untersuchen-folgen-des-infraschalls_18566513#

 

 

integrity-the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.

 

I'm talking to you about your behavior.  Other people's behavior does not excuse your behavior.  My 9 year old daughter knows that.

 

The human body generates infrasound.  

 

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-scientists-effects-infrasonic-vibrations-humans.html

 

As I've already stated, cars, airplanes, and trains all generate infrasound.

 

Though, I love that your source cited Taubes who has a long history of not properly reflecting the results of the studies he cites and has never tried to publish anything in a peer reviewed journal.

 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-we-get-fat/

 

There's nothing at your link that suggest infrasound from wind turbines is especially concerning, especially considering the large number of sources of infrasound from natural and non-natural sources.

 

(Though, I do love that you are posting things where somebody is saying the "science is settled" to support your opintion based on one study that hasn't been replicated or reviewed by anybody else.)

 

There is nothing in the WHO release that points out anything specific to wind turbines that it it not related to the larger issue of noise in industrial/modern life.

 

The founding fathers believed in rights, but they also believed in responsibilities.  You have the right to freedom of speech, but that comes with responsibilities.  You practice one and not the other.  Try not blaming others for your behavior and practicing both.

Edited January 20, 2019 by PeterMP

[twa]

Sounds boring.

 

But I suppose there is no point .....we can just wait for the journals.

[China]

MAJORITY OF AMERICANS UNWILLING TO PAY $10 A MONTH TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE

 

A significant majority of Americans are unwilling to contribute $10 each month to address climate change, an AP-NORC survey found. 

 

While 57 percent of those surveyed would contribute $1 a month to combat global warming, that number drops significantly when the monetary contribution increases. Twenty-eight percent of respondents said they would pay $10 each month, 30 percent said they would pay $20 a month, and 16 percent said they would contribute $100 each month. 

 

The survey found that individuals living in households with an annual income of at least $100,000 were more supportive of a monthly utility fee to address climate change. It also found that 72 percent of Democrats who said climate change is real attributed its existence primarily to anthropogenic causes, a figure far higher than the 33 percent of Republicans who believed in climate change and thought it was caused by humans.

 

Extreme weather events played a significant role in altering respondents' views on climate change, the AP-NORC report said. For those who increasingly believed climate science in the previous five years, 76 percent said that extreme weather events changed their perception.

 

On Tuesday, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication released a poll that found that 73 percent of Americans said global warming is taking place. 

 

The research, which was conducted at the end of 2018, indicated record recognition of climate change.

 

The poll from Yale and George Mason showed a significant rise in the amount of people who said climate change is "extremely," "very," or "somewhat" important to them, according to The New York Times. By the end of the year, 72 percent of individuals surveyed said climate change was important to them, a nine percent increase from March. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[China]

Last Year Was a Hot One—and 2019 Will Be Hotter

 

Earth capped its fourth-warmest year in human history in 2018, and this year will almost certainly be hotter according to a newly-released analysis.

 

 

The analysis comes from Berkeley Earth, an independent group of scientists, and specifically shows the world was 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.77 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951-80 average. NASA uses the same baseline. The analysis doesn’t include December data thanks to Trump’s shutdown, which continues to wreak havoc on science.

 

But 2018 is so much warmer than fifth-place 2010 that the rankings are unlikely to change. Berkeley Earth’s ranking also lines up with predictions put together by NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt back in October.

 

The top four warmest years have all occurred in the last four years. Basically, climate change has made these types of freakishly warm years our life now, and it’s only a question of how much other natural climate patterns will determine where the records fall.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

[LD0506]

[visionary]

 

[twa]

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY IS MELTING THIS ANTARCTIC GLACIER FROM BELOW

https://www.newsweek.com/volcanic-activity-melting-antarctic-glacier-below-998522

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, twa said:

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY IS MELTING THIS ANTARCTIC GLACIER FROM BELOW

https://www.newsweek.com/volcanic-activity-melting-antarctic-glacier-below-998522

 

"it’s not climate change alone that is causing the thaw."