Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

If the plebs won’t voluntarily accept climate action – it will have to be forced on them.​

The unpleasant truth is – if policy makers are serious about achieving netzero, it will require a massive policy of degrowth that will impoverish the masses and demolish the economy – none of which is conducive to being re-elected.

Which means: if world governments are serious about climate action, they will have to impose a totalitarian dictatorship to achieve it.

This has already been understood and internalized by the mainstream corporate media – after experiencing the destruction of their monopoly on “news” at the hands of the internet – have aggressively pivoted into a new business model: that of being propagandists for eco-Marxism.

Academia is right there alongside, putting out research papers to enshrine climate collectivism into the public discourse, and freeze out any dissenters.

In “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change”, Ross Mittiga, a professor of Political Theory at the Catholic University of Chile (and Democratic Socialist) argues that political aspirants should not even be permitted to seek office unless they pass a “climate litmus test”;

“Governments might also justifiably limit certain democratic institutions and processes to the extent these bear on the promulgation or implementation of environmental policy. This could involve imposing a climate litmus-test on those who seek public office, disqualifying anyone who has significant (relational or financial) ties to climate-harming industries or a history of climate denialism.”
“More strongly, governments may establish institutions capable of overturning previous democratic decisions (expressed, for example, in popu- lar referenda or plebiscites) against the implementation of carbon taxes or other necessary climate policies.”

Click to expand...

In a 2023 piece via BBC’s “Future World”, the prospect of climate change and action around it was deemed “too important to be left to personal choice”, which laments,

”what do truly low-carbon lifestyles look like – and can they really be achieved by personal choice alone?“

Click to expand...

Future Labs – also out of the UK – put out a paper on the future of travel last year, that predicted mandatory “carbon passports” that would limit one’s travel based on their C02 footprint:

A personal carbon emissions limit will become the new normal…
These allowances will manifest as passports that force people to ration their carbon in line with the global carbon budget…
By 2040, we can expect to see limitations imposed on the amount of travel that is permitted each year.
Experts suggest that individuals should currently limit their carbon emissions to 2.3 tonnes each year

Click to expand...

This last line is important – because it puts a number to how far down the rabble is expected to ratchet down their living standards: it’s about one quarter of what the typical G20 citizen emits today – by 2040, and “experts suggest” that gets cut again by half by 2050.

In the carbon passports article I laid out a table showing by how much individuals in each country would have to ratchet down their output to meet the personal carbon allowances, set by unelected and unaccountable experts:



Both politicians and their appointed apparatchiks are being more open about their ideologies and decidedly collectivist aims:

In 2023 a federal report published by Health Canada openly advocated for the dismantling of capitalism itself, equating it with white supremacy and colonialism – attributing them all as core drivers of the climate crisis. Another term for “capitalism” is “free markets”.

The report also advocated for collectivism and decried individualism as “one of the core values of society that has to change”:

“The hopes expressed by participants encompassed such a vision of collectivism”
“there are 3 core values in western society, and for that matter, in global society, that have to change. One core value is about growth and materialism. The second core value is liberty and individualism, which has to be rethought because the kind of individualism that is preached by neoliberals is part of the problem. It advances the individual over the collective… it leads to a huge number of problems, and it undermines the collective process”
“If we don’t address capitalism, if we don’t address colonialism, racism, the patriarchy, et cetera, we’re going to tread water for a long time until we eventually drown …”

Click to expand...

As I remarked at the time: this was not a think piece or a screed from Vox or Jacobin Magazine – it was an official Canadian government report issued in the name of “His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2023”.

Canadian politicians across all parties have been coalescing around climate authoritarianism for decades. In 2007, Canada’s Laurentian Elite met in Merrickville, Ontario to discuss how best to advance the climate agenda – and was later analyzed via a series of interviews with the participants who comprised a who’s who of Canadian dynastic wealth, corporate power, politics – and media.

They transcended party boundaries: Former Prime Minister Joe Clark, Justin Trudeau bagman Stephen Bronfman, Patrick Daniel (Enbridge), Stéphane Dion, former Quebec premiere Pierre Marc Johnson, WE Charity co-founder Mark Kielburger, the list goes on.

From the “strictly confidential” briefings which are openly linked from this UCLA professor’s web page we learn how Canada’s elite ruminated about the lack of action on climate change, and how untenable the required societal mobilization would be in a democracy:

“It is impossible to have real conservation in a democracy! What is needed is a benevolent dictator—globally, and in Canada.”

Click to expand...

During the proceedings…

“…many speakers express a longing for an authoritative decision process that somehow takes the issue out of the political arena. Some express this as the need for a “benign dictator;”

Click to expand...

Today we have Canadian Members of Parliament attempting to advance legislation that would imprison people for speaking in favour of fossil fuels.

This move toward climate authoritarianism is spreading throughout the neoLiberal world order – most recently in Germany a “Climate Justice” report by the German Ethics Council concluded that “restricting freedoms may be necessary to fight climate change”.

The original is in german, although there is an english summary here, I had the full PDF run through DeepL and is here.

From the summary, we do get the juicy bits:

“Responsibility presupposes freedom, and freedom includes responsibility. This principle also applies for climate change; it is crucial for our free and democratic society and safeguarded and guaranteed by law. Social coexistence requires mutual restrictions of freedom, in order to provide equitable freedom for all.“
“The inner and rationally guided realisation of the necessity for action leads to self-commitment as an expression of one’s individual freedom. This may imply that people question their former lifestyle or adapt their behaviour, for example by voluntarily abandoning certain vacation, consumption or mobility practices.”

Click to expand...

And the Orwell Award goes to:

“On grounds of justice, it can be morally required to contribute to measures to tackle climate change. If one’s own exercise of freedom interferes in an unjust manner with the freedom and welfare of others or of future generations, for example through consumption that is harmful to the climate, the authorities may intervene with restrictions of freedom.
As long as there is no regulatory obligation, it is left up to the individual to accept a moral obligation to co-operate.”

Click to expand...

This would be a good place to ask yourself: what do you think the relentless attacks on Bitcoin’s Proof of Work mining has really been about? It isn’t to save the environment from Bitcoin’s electricity consumption – it’s to create the pretext for asserting authority over all energy usage.

We could probably even riff out one of those Martin Niemöller “First They Came For…” poetic reboots:

“First they came for the Bitcoin miners (but I didn’t care because I was a no-coiner)…” (or one of those PoS retards).
“Then they came for…” yada yada yada – guess how it ends?
“Then they came for me, because of my heated bathroom floors”

Click to expand...

There’s only one other problem with all this…

#Degrowth For Thee, But Not For Me​

It’s not bad enough that your consumption choices are being decided for you by unelected technocrats informed by garbage computer models predicting an unfalsifiable eco-Eschaton.

What’s worse is that while you’re personal standard of living is going to be attenuated, metered, capped and regulated (this is what the coming CBDCs are all about) – the apparatchiks, functionaries and career politicians who force this on you will not ratchet back their own consumption patterns, not at all.

When I reported on COP26’s takeaways (basically, they’re coming after your meat consumption), what stood out the most was the hypocrisy of a strategic objective emerging from an elite conclave that was arrived at almost exclusively by private jet, and whose culinary menu contained some of the most carbon heavy delicacies available. High grade Scottish haggis and venison were served, soy protein and bugs were not.

This is the rule, not the exception. Canada’s environment minister, who doesn’t mince words that “fighting climate change is about limiting your energy usage”:

Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault rather blithely answering a reporter who asked "will the government limit natural gas usage in the winter?"

(Short answer: "Of Course! That's What fighting climate change looks like!")

Watch: pic.twitter.com/sau9p2CMnW
— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) November 25, 2023

Click to expand...

But has no qualms around spending millions of dollars flying his entourage out to COP28 and staying in a $2,000/night luxury hotel suite.

Everybody else needs to ditch their cars, eat bugs and decolonialize extractive capitalism so that “proud socialists” like this fuck here can fly out to COP28 on a private jet and live large… https://t.co/a7fYsH52sy
— Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) March 20, 2024

Click to expand...

Never forget this: whenever you hear politicians, “experts”, policy wonks and especially celebrities talking about the need to dial back consumption, energy usage, travel, meat consumption and even owning pets in order to “Save The World” they aren’t talking about their own lifestyles. They’re talking about yours.

​

The Public Has Had Enough​

Earlier I mentioned how there’s basically one lever the public can use to skate eco-authoritarianism into the boards, and that’s the electoral process – which is why we wonder out loud how long those will be allowed to continue.

Here’s Klaus Schwab navel gazing with Sergei Brin about how Big Tech and algorithms will make elections unnecessary, “because the algos will already know who is going to win” (he poses this hypothetical about a minute after he says “in ten years we’ll all be sitting here with our brain implants”)



Back here in reality: Canada’s left-wing coalition will be ejected from power in the next election, that’s pretty well a forgone conclusion.

The US would be headed in that direction, provided the election in November actually takes place and isn’t rigged. The stakes are so high there, it’s hard to know what will happen. I once said that Donald Trump would be the penultimate President of the United States as we know them. Meaning, whoever came after him, would be the last President of a United States. We’ll see.

The public sentiment is overwhelmingly done with climate alarmism, wokeness, and cultural Marxism in general. The question now is, will this backlash and turning point be allowed to express itself peacefully and democratically? Or will it end up unleashing a more forceful backlash?

This is all part of the war between centralization and decentralization, which I’ve always said is, and will be, the defining tension of our era. This will transcend left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal.

The battle now is between people who want to decide things for everybody else, vs. people who want control over their own lives.

The Most Important Thing You Can Do​

First – you have to help dismantle the norm that it is somehow unacceptable or immoral to reject the prevailing climate alarmism.

When Karen the co-worker goes off on a sermon in the lunchroom that “Pierre Poilievre has no climate action plan”, instead of internally smirking and looking forward to the next election, you have to speak up, right there and then, “Yes, that’s why everybody is going to vote for him, including me”.

This is important because, as we saw under COVID, the tyrannical regimens continued as long as normal people were afraid to speak their minds.

Nobody liked being arbitrarily divided into “essential” and “non-essential” workers and businesses.

Nobody liked wearing masks, sticking PCR tests up their noses or standing on the fucking dots. But everybody did it, because the first two doctors who spoke up about how stupid it all was, had their careers destroyed – and that set the trend for the next two years.

It was the forced vaccinations that finally put the public over the edge, and it took a near uprising by the #FreedomConvoy to finally turn the tide and put an end to it.

The coming Climate Authoritarianism will make COVID tyranny seem like a libertarian paradise.

In today’s landscape of internet connected everything, big data, and now AI, and soon, monetary Apartheid via CBDCs, all the ingredients will be there for a technocratic authoritarianism that netzero and degrowth requires.

Your job isn’t to tell the government you aren’t on board with this: your job is to demonstrate to those around you that it’s ok not to be on board with it.

Opinion: AFAIK, CAES is around 70% round trip efficiency. It would be nice to see the LCOE calculated by a reputable source like Lazard's. At least it can be a works "anywhere" technology (unlike hydro). DOE has a recent (7/23) update on CAES here. As I recall, CAES pricing varies widely on if you can make use of natural underground storage (and not cause earthquakes) similar to hydro being location specific. Here's a DOE 2020 assessment.

Lazard does have a Levelized Cost of Hydrogen report, but it doesn't include natural hydrogen.

D71 said:

Have you seen the latest about Covid? All the official websites talked about it. Told everyone questioning them were misinformation and deniers.

The cdc says treat covid like the flu now. Whew.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the vaccine played a role in that

D71 said:

Besides we have a comet going to kill us in 2 weeks send money.

Click to expand...

Now that’s totally social media bull shit

D71 said:

This game has been played over and over. I am old and have been lied to over and over. My grand parents and parents survived the Great Depression. They said never trust the Govt. They were right. Always some fuck head……

Click to expand...

And this time the fuck head is named Donald Trump

D71 said:

When if you get old you will maybe have learned. There is always a fucker working a con game.

Click to expand...

And that fucker gets his idea from “The art of the deal”

Maybe the "AI" can figure out how to power itself, if it has enough power to do so

New Paper Challenges Unproven Claims: Effect of Human-Caused Carbon Emissions on Climate is “Non-Discernible”​

Every now and then, a giant of modern science should be allowed to express himself in language that we all understand. In the informative Climate: The Movie, the 2022 Nobel physics laureate Dr. John Clauser thundered: “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.” While not expressing himself in such forthright terms, the Greek scientist Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis might agree. He recently published a paper that argues it is the recent expansion of a more productive biosphere that has led to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth. It is widely argued that changing atmospheric carbon isotopes prove, most if not all, recent warming is caused by the 4% human contribution from burning hydrocarbons, but such anthropogenic involvement is dismissed by Koutsoyiannis as “non-discernible”. Koutsoyiannis is Professor Emeritus of Hydrology and Analysis of Hydrosystems at the National Technical University of Athens.

The isotope argument has been around for some time and has been useful in closing down debate on the role of human-caused CO2 and its supposed effect in causing a ‘climate emergency’. The carbon in living matter has a slightly higher proportion of 12C isotopes, and recent lowering levels of 13C, which accounts for 99% of carbon in the atmosphere, are used to promote the idea that it is caused by burning hydrocarbons. But Koutsoyiannis argues that the more productive biosphere has resulted in “natural amplification of the carbon cycle due to increased temperature”. He suggests this may be a “primary factor for the decrease in the isotopic signature 13C in atmospheric CO2”.
Clauser’s remarks, along with contributions from a number of other distinguished scientists, have led to widespread attempts to shadow-ban Martin Durkin’s Climate: The Movie in mainstream and social media. If Clauser and scientists like Koutsoyiannis are correct, there is no need for the Net Zero global collectivisation. Trillions of dollars can be taken back from the Climate Industrial Network to be used to solve more pressing environmental and social problems. In such circles, the idea that humans control the climate thermostat is regarded as little short of pseudoscience. In the film, the former Princeton professor William Happer says he can live with the descriptive suggestion ‘hoax’, although he prefers the word ‘scam’. Disregarding the role of natural forces and promoting a 50 year-old hypothesis – science speak for ‘opinion’ – that can’t even agree on the degree of warming caused by higher levels of CO2 – holds little attraction for these sceptical science minds.
During the course of the Durkin film, the evidence mounts that the warming ‘opinion’ can’t explain any of the climate change observations seen over the last 500 million years of life on Earth. As the Daily Sceptic has noted on numerous occasions, it would help if there was at least one peer-reviewed paper that proved conclusively that humans caused all or most changes in the climate. A politically-manufactured ‘consensus’ and appeals to UN authority do not count.

Koutsoyiannis provides some of the historical background to the evolution of the isotope story, and its use to promote the ‘settled’ science narrative around CO2. The generally accepted hypothesis “may reflect a dogmatic approach or a postmodern ideological effect, i.e., to blame everything on human actions”, he observes. Hence, he says, the null hypothesis that all observed changes are mostly natural has not seriously been investigated. To add weight to his contention, Koutsoyiannis repeats the infamous claim made recently at a World Economic Forum meeting by Melissa Fleming, Under Secretary-General for Global Communications at the United Nations: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it.”
The Koutsoyiannis paper is long and detailed and he uses data obtained from the California-based Scripps Institution that has been measuring isotopic signatures since 1978, along with proxy data going back five centuries. The complex workings can be viewed in the full paper with the author concluding that instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years shows no discernible signs of human hydrocarbon CO2 emissions. He also found that the modern record did not differ in terms of net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks from the proxy data, including Antarctica ice cores, going back 500 years.

The lack, or otherwise, of a discernible human-caused carbon isotope signature is an interesting branch of climate science to investigate, although, as we have seen, it is constrained by the political requirements governing the settled science narrative. In 2022, three physics professors led by Kenneth Skrable from the University of Massachusetts broke ranks and examined the atmospheric trail left by the isotopes. They discovered that the amount of CO2 released by hydrocarbon burning since 1750, “was much too low to be the cause of global warming”. The scientists found that claims of the dominance of anthropogenic fossil fuel in the isotope record had involved the “misuse” of statistics. They stated that the assumption that the increase in CO2 is dominated by or equal to the anthropogenic component is “not settled science”.
They warned that “unsupported conclusions” of human involvement “have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary and ineffective in curbing global warming”.

EU court: climate inaction by states breaches human rights​

​

No sign of greenhouse gases increases slowing in 2023​

Cocoa industry preps for era of escalating climate impacts​

Will empty petroleum reservoirs work for storing clean hydrogen?​

Hydrogen Fuel Cells powering air planes?
It looks like as folks have been looking to reduce emissions there's been a great deal of interest in Hydrogen replacing jet fuel:

...hydrogen has an energy density that is approximately three times greater than that of conventional jet fuel... ref

Click to expand...

Not only cleaner, but electric motors driven by fuel cells could be lighter, more reliable, cheaper, and require less maintenance. Still early days, but green or not, they might switch just for the economics. Airbus is aiming to bring a hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft to market by 2035 so there will be some hard data then (things always look cheap and easy in theory ; -). Wonder what it would be like to fly without the roar of a jet engine?

Starex said:

Perhaps the vaccine played a role in that


Now that’s totally social media bull shit

And this time the fuck head is named Donald Trump

And that fucker gets his idea from “The art of the deal”

Click to expand...

What's in the koolaid with all the TDS folks? I dont understand the raw hatred for anyone who loves their country, and wants to see it and their fellow citizens prosper.

Do ya'll on the left actually WANT socialism and division? Is your model city Portland? San Francisco was once a jewel, and leftists made it a shithole full of thieves, rats, addicts, illegals, and murderers.

Wouldn't you like to try some new ideas and actually save our cities? More freedoms? Prosperity? Crime off the streets so kids can play again?

Sanwizard said:

What's in the koolaid with all the TDS folks? I dont understand the raw hatred for anyone who loves their country, and wants to see it and their fellow citizens prosper.

Do ya'll on the left actually WANT socialism and division? Is your model city Portland? San Francisco was once a jewel, and leftists made it a shithole full of thieves, rats, addicts, illegals, and murderers.

Wouldn't you like to try some new ideas and actually save our cities? More freedoms? Prosperity? Crime off the streets so kids can play again?

Click to expand...

Sir I submit that you are banging your head into a brick wall when speaking with these louts.

Sanwizard said:

Wouldn't you like to try some new ideas and actually save our cities? More freedoms? Prosperity? Crime off the streets so kids can play again?

Click to expand...

New ideas? Like autocracy? Dictatorship?
If you want that you can just move to Russia where the average household income in USD is under $10,000. BTW, Russia is a socialist country.
Now that’s what you call prosperity!
Trump ran up the most debt in any 4 year period than any other president in history.
I’m sure you’ll respond with the BS statement that Obama ran up more debt.
True but it was over 8 years. His 4 year average was substantially less than trumps

More freedoms? He already outlawed abortion. He wants to jail or execute anyone he doesn’t like calling them vermin.
The only freedom you want is the freedom to shoot people with your assault weapons

Crime being up is just a republican talking point. The only evidence that crime is up, is from republican talking points.
Actual data shows it is down.

Starex said:

New ideas? Like autocracy? Dictatorship?
If you want that you can just move to Russia where the average household income in USD is under $10,000. BTW, Russia is a socialist country.
Now that’s what you call prosperity!
Trump ran up the most debt in any 4 year period than any other president in history.
I’m sure you’ll respond with the BS statement that Obama ran up more debt.
True but it was over 8 years. His 4 year average was substantially less than trumps

More freedoms? He already outlawed abortion. He wants to jail or execute anyone he doesn’t like calling them vermin.
The only freedom you want is the freedom to shoot people with your assault weapons

Crime being up is just a republican talking point. The only evidence that crime is up, is from republican talking points.
Actual data shows it is down.

Click to expand...

Why didn’t your parents abort you?

fpgt72 said:

And you think google scholar is going to give you the straight dope on anything and everything?

That is a baseline error in your thinking.

Click to expand...

I believe it's going to give me better answers than you get from 5th grade drops on social media.

Sanwizard said:

Wouldn't you like to try some new ideas and actually save our cities? More freedoms? Prosperity? Crime off the streets so kids can play again?

Click to expand...

Tried "new ideas" for 4 years. The only thing I learned was that trump is a narcissistic sociopath.

If I knew for sure that trump would serve his 4 years and walk away politely like every other president has done, I'd wouldn't be so concerned.
He has made it clear that he intends to become a dictator.
If you don't like his "new ideas" after a while that's just too too bad.
You'll be stuck with a trump president for the rest of your life and beyond.

aenyc said:

New Paper Challenges Unproven Claims: Effect of Human-Caused Carbon Emissions on Climate is “Non-Discernible”​

Every now and then, a giant of modern science should be allowed to express himself in language that we all understand. In the informative Climate: The Movie, the 2022 Nobel physics laureate Dr. John Clauser thundered: “I assert there is no connection whatsoever between climate change and CO2 – it’s all a crock of crap, in my opinion.”

Click to expand...

John Clauser earned the noble prize for his work in Quantum Physics.
A Physics curriculum doesn't include climate science as a required course.
Anyone versed in Quantum Physics is well aware of the uncertainty principle.
How then, is he so certain about his knowledge of climate science.

From what you've posted I believe you are an Economist.
Not only do economist know nothing about Climate science, they have a very poor record of predicting future economic conditions.

Economists Can’t Forecast Economists have an awful record at forecasting inflation, interest rates, gross domestic product, and other macro variables. Cato institute DECEMBER 27, 2022 2:03PM​

You guys can't even get it right in your own field, but you choose to come here and attempt to lecture people on climate.

Starex said:

New ideas? Like autocracy? Dictatorship?
If you want that you can just move to Russia where the average household income in USD is under $10,000. BTW, Russia is a socialist country.
Now that’s what you call prosperity!
Trump ran up the most debt in any 4 year period than any other president in history.
I’m sure you’ll respond with the BS statement that Obama ran up more debt.
True but it was over 8 years. His 4 year average was substantially less than trumps

More freedoms? He already outlawed abortion. He wants to jail or execute anyone he doesn’t like calling them vermin.
The only freedom you want is the freedom to shoot people with your assault weapons

Crime being up is just a republican talking point. The only evidence that crime is up, is from republican talking points.
Actual data shows it is down.

Click to expand...

Wow. Def. Koolaid drinker. From russia, to spending, to killing babies, to "assault" weapons, to jail and executions, to crime.
Pretty much most of the narrative lemming emotional talking points on the left.
Excuse me while I head to the range to practice.

Dr Do2much said:

Tried "new ideas" for 4 years. The only thing I learned was that trump is a narcissistic sociopath.

If I knew for sure that trump would serve his 4 years and walk away politely like every other president has done, I'd wouldn't be so concerned.
He has made it clear that he intends to become a dictator.
If you don't like his "new ideas" after a while that's just too too bad.
You'll be stuck with a trump president for the rest of your life and beyond.

Click to expand...

You had an uncle that lacked boundaries, clearly

Starex said:

New ideas? Like autocracy? Dictatorship?
If you want that you can just move to Russia where the average household income in USD is under $10,000. BTW, Russia is a socialist country.
Now that’s what you call prosperity!
Trump ran up the most debt in any 4 year period than any other president in history.
I’m sure you’ll respond with the BS statement that Obama ran up more debt.
True but it was over 8 years. His 4 year average was substantially less than trumps

More freedoms? He already outlawed abortion. He wants to jail or execute anyone he doesn’t like calling them vermin.
The only freedom you want is the freedom to shoot people with your assault weapons

Crime being up is just a republican talking point. The only evidence that crime is up, is from republican talking points.
Actual data shows it is down.

Click to expand...

It's clear you identify more with a women than a man.

Here's a question.

They come up with a test that let's you determine if a kid will end up gay or "trans" or pansexual or whatever antagonistic identity you're defending today.

Ok?

So a Mom goes and gets a test and based on that test, finds out her kid is going to be an lgbtq.

The mother decides she doesn't want to raise an lgbtq kid so decides to have the baby aborted.

Do you support her decision?

Checkthisout said:

It's clear you identify more with a women than a man.

Here's a question.

They come up with a test that let's you determine if a kid will end up gay or "trans" or pansexual or whatever antagonistic identity you're defending today.

Click to expand...

Weird question from someone who doesn’t trust science.

Checkthisout said:

Do you support her decision?

Click to expand...

What if the test determined whether or not the kid would grow up to be a democrat?
What would you advise her to do?