From a climate CO2 point of view that's an entirely correct statement.i'm afraid that is not the full story. this, however, is:
if "preferably no flights" wins then we might as well go to the stone age.
now, that's bull of the highest calibre
No mention of Walls though.
But you probably don't believe in climate change, in which case from your POV it would be problematical.
Not for people who don't fly anywhere.if there are no flights it's not problematic just from my pov but from ALL of ours.
Not for people who don't fly anywhere.
yes, even for them. they do eat, right?
hell, they even buy stuff from china, i'm looking at you bh and virtually every forumite here who have not chosen to endorse my embargo.
we're only 50% sufficient in food
yes, even for them. they do eat, right?
we're only 50% sufficient in food
yeah, cause those do not emit co2, right? if bh was not talking about cargo it seems that mike is as thick as meBH was not talking about cargo flights,.
BH was not talking about cargo flights, your argument is as bogus as you are.
yeah, cause those do not emit co2, right? if bh was not talking about cargo it seems that mike is as thick as me
commie intelligence
hey, commie. listen up:Typical straw man clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to deflect from his own inability to present a valid argument.
hey, commie. listen up:
bh posted what to me, trev and mike was a co2 argument and we ALL replied based on that.
you would not know what an argument is if it hit you square in the face.