Slashdot Mirror
The US Is Now the Only Country In the World To Reject the Paris Climate Deal
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Today, Syria announced that it would sign the Paris climate agreement -- a landmark deal that commits almost 200 countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. With Nicaragua also joining the deal last month, the United States is now the only country in the world that opposes it. In June, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, unless it is renegotiated to be "fair" to the United States. But other countries in the deal, such as France, Germany, and Italy, said that's not possible. The Trump administration is also taking steps to roll back regulations passed under former President Barack Obama to achieve the emissions reduction goals set under the Paris deal. The U.S. is the second largest emitter of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the world after China. "With Syria's decision, the relentless commitment of the global community to deliver on Paris is more evident than ever," Paula Caballero, director of the climate change program at the World Resources Institute, told the Times. "The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."
Because we should. Noblesse Oblige.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin. If you have it good, it's probably because of the people around you. You owe them something back.
Yup. Decided to come back to slashdot to see if it really was as ignorant and stupid as I feared it had become.
Congratulations, you completely verified it.
Indeed, why should you sign on to an agreement that will save the planet? What has the planet ever done for YOU?
I'll be back in a year to check on you all again.
Trump is rejecting not because of what the Paris Climate deal is, he's rejecting it because it was his predecessor's doing.
This is the problem with a President going out and creating legislation through Executive Orders. The next President that comes along can just as easily undo them with the swipe of a pen. This isn't something new to Obama or Trump, it's been done by multiple Presidents. If you want a law to stay a law, have it ratified by the LEGISLATIVE branch, not the EXECUTIVE branch.
I know the majority of voters in America can't even name the 3 branches much less describe their function, but a simple civics test at the polling booth could easily weed out those that should be allowed a vote in our Democracy versus those that should be sent to an American Idol polling booth and would never know the difference.
then we should follow their example, as they're clearly our moral superiors.
We are the only country to have a reality TV star with neither any political experience nor any experience in international relations as our president . We are the laughing stock of the civilized world.
And the UN has already stated it won't do a lick of good anyway, even if everyone played ball.
If it's a binding deal, it's a treaty and needed Senate ratification.
If it's not a binding deal, it's a useless turd.
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I'll byte. Here's the answer:
Why should WE convince YOU? Well, because you're polluting MY air and, hence, YOU MUST be punished; or we WILL HAVE TO stop buying ANYTHING FROM YOU because it will DESTROY the world my people will inherit.
Ain't that clear enough?
Because the data suggests that if Donald Trump is against it, there is very nearly a 100% chance that it's the right thing to do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
However the 96% of the worlds population outside the USA may decide buying US made goods is a bad thing for the environment.
Feel free to quit all the trade agreements you have, build as many walls as you like, there rest of the world will learn to carry on without you.
Its 100% your choice to leave.... HOWEVER its 100% OUR choice to let you back in and it will be on OUR terms, not yours.
US is rogue state.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I'm not even sure it's marketing. At best, it's just ignorance of what the deal entailed for us, and what it committed us to. At worst, which seems to be the trend, it's just glossing over the facts deliberately to fit an agenda.
I had a sucky sig.
The question here is not whether you want to follow others jumping off a cliff. If there is a cliff, then everybody is going to jump, regardless of his opinion. If there is no cliff, then those who now warn about approaching it will first become silent and then be ridiculed a few decades later. If there is a cliff, then we'll see who's better off: Those who tried to stop approaching it, or those who prepared for a softer landing or some improvised flying device.
Ah, and if some supervulcano erupts, it might be we'll hit a high wall rather than a cliff.
Try reading it. It's kind of its own source.
In short, countries like China and India don't have to do a damn thing about their pollution for 10+ years, whereas the US and some other western nations have to cut all pollution massively and immediately, thus screwing their industries.
Further to that, if the western nations were able to do that, the TOTAL reduction in global pollution over those 13 years would be offset by the amount of pollution China and India emit in just one year or so. In other words, China and India, who produce 10 times the pollution, would be free to keep doing it while the rest of the world surrenders economically. That's why Trump backed out.
Jesus Christ Burma & Liberia! You're gonna ditch us on this?!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Look, the actual economic powerhouse cities and states that drive more than half of the US GDP are already meeting and exceeding the Paris Accords.
It's just the inefficient tax-subsidized states that aren't, which is why they aren't growing their GDP.
Renewables and efficient buildings and plants allow us to outcompete you buggy whip manufacturing denialists.
Cheaper, faster, better.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I don't see how you get "relentless commitment" out of "non-binding" "agreements".
He's rejecting it because of what it is not. It is NOT a solution to global climate change. His predecessor is irrelevant, although it is convenient that he tried implementing a treaty commitment without going through the constitutional process required.
The US is the only country that would actually have to do anything under the Paris Climate Deal.
Please cite your evidence where this is true.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Rejecting the AGW hypothesis has never been stated as a reason for rejecting the accords. Forcing US to pay for it while not forcing other nations, which pollute on the same level, to pay for it was the reason given.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
You owe them something back.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin.
Not nearly (not even by a long shot) as much as if you are demanding Noblesse Oblige from others. Those demanding it are the true bona fide villains.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country.
The average American produces 17 tonnes of CO2 annually. The average Syrian produces less than two. Insisting that we should all make the same reduction is idiotic.
Because transitioning the USA's energy sources to renewables does benefit the USA?
Coal is dying, not because of "regulations", but because it is being out-competed by solar and wind. Why promote a dirty, polluting energy source that is dangerous to human life on earth over cheaper, non-polluting sources?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Itâ(TM)s not symmetric. The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. Insulting individuals who take issue with that is just cruel marketing.
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises. The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
The Paris Climate Accord was a step in the right direction. If Trump wants to say he's taking a different step in that direction, fantastic. On the other hand, if he's saying that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy (or a normal fluctuation, or due to solar flares, etc.), that's another matter.
Ob XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
No process was required, because no commitment was made.
A commitment to abide by the "accord" was made.
The most common way is when the president signs a treaty which he has the authority to carry out, without involvement of Congress. This is called a "Sole Executive Treaty".
US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2:
2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Treaties require the consent of the Senate with a two-thirds approval. This "Sole Executive Treaty" you speak of is not constitutional.
He didn't have to go to Congress because the accord doesn't have any binding commitments.
Then the broohaahaa over the US "backing out" of this accord is moot, since there were no binding commitments to begin with. We didn't have to do nothing, so saying we ain't gonna do nothing is ... well, seems like a rational statement to me. And all the states who are saying "we're going to abide by an agreement that doesn't require us to do anything" is pretty meaningless. I think the term is "virtue signaling."
In other words, China and India, who produce 10 times the pollution, would be free to keep doing it while the rest of the world surrenders economically.
Dunno where you're getting your figures. I know 2015 was 2 years ago, but a quick google shows that in 2015 India and China combined had roughly 2.5 times the co2 output of the USA, not 10 times. Given that they have about 8 times the USA population betwee them, the average person from those 2 countries cause less than 1/3rd the amount of co2 an American does.
Does anyone believe that a single policy will stop global climate change?
Does anyone believe that the colloquial English phrase "a solution to" always means "a complete and final, irrevocable, perfect solution to ..."? When something solves nothing, it is quite sufficient to dismiss it by saying that it is not a solution to whatever.
When we look back at people from the medieval period pissing and shitting in the street right outside their house we laugh at how dumb they could have been, in the future (if anyone's left alive) they will look back at us and laugh at how dumb we are for polluting and destroying the environment we live in.
Either that, or, depending on what happenes between now and then, those humans living kind of of crowded in a small band around the equator may praise us as the ones who kept them from dying all out on a snowball earth.
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I'm not going to climb into a rabbit hole full of BS trying to argue that it's fair and/or to the US's benefit.
It's the exact same tactic denialists use, to obscure the obvious by getting lost in the details.
You should believe Climate Change is a threat because an overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant expertise believe it's a threat.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
Before you start arguing the nuances of "benefits" and "fair" you need to explain why everyone else is getting it so wrong.
I stole this Sig
The better analogy would be "If everyone is hitting the brakes to avoid driving off a cliff, shouldn't you do the same?"
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
What he is saying is 100% true and hence he should not be marked as a troll.
I think what people dislike is the part of his comment about fact fracking is benefiting us. It is. That's undeniable. However fracking causes other side effects, some of which are undeniably bad.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
Ditto.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
It's always fun to be called out by ignorant fuckwits who want to push an agenda, but the facts are not on their side:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
"The inflection point has already been reached in the West, and by 2021 solar will be cheaper than coal in China."
Yes, fracking has historically been the reason coal is going away, but renewable sources are now adding to that.
"Those milestones will surely lead to greater adoption of clean energy. And the report predicts that of the $10.2 trillion expected to be invested into power generation between now and 2040, 72 percent will be channeled into renewables."
So crawl back under your bridge and STFU.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Except, the government is actively trying to reduce/remove regulations on emissions. They didn't pull out of the agreement to reduce emissions on our own terms, they pulled out to not have to reduce emissions.
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Maybe the politicians and the religious aspect of politics sets others off, sometimes radically (now moreso than in the past), but it doesn't justify saying that pissing off the establishment and their supporters is a bad thing.
Frankly, aside from pissing off the establishment and their supporters I don't see him doing much wrong. He's not presidential? So be it. He pisses off his party and the democrats? So be it. The American people hired him to drain the swamp. That's going to piss a lot of people off.
Don't give me that shit about racism or treason or whatever. I've followed this from before the primaries. Trump wasn't a racist nor was he treasonous before the election and he isn't now. It is clear that the establishment (including the media) is attempting to run the presidency through extortion (ala, play ball or we'll impeach you).
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
because it's already fair. The U.S. gets to pick and choose whatever they like and do under their own regulation to reduce emission. That's the Paris agreement. If they wish, they can do nothing.
There's nothing to renegotiate or even negotiate when it's already a buffet to pick whatever they like.
"The U.S.'s stark isolation should give Trump reason to reconsider his ill-advised announcement and join the rest of the world in tackling climate change."
Yeah, President Trump will change his position because of peer pressure...
We, as a country, can increase or decrease our nation's carbon footprint without signing the Paris Climate Accord.
Ken
Slashdot never fails to deliver these days. I can only wonder in awe at the kind of deranged mind that thinks New York is Communist, having vanished over the far right event horizon into pure batshit insanity.
"Trump tried to renegotiate" He did? He formally approached the other members of the Paris Accord with an actual proposal? Someone in his administration actually said "we wish to renegotiate", outside of press releases or tweets?? If one looks at how the Agreement is designed, there is nothing to "renegotiate". All we have to do is submit a new “nationally determined contribution”, that's it. No negotiation required. For someone who claims to be "the best negotiator ever" who has a "a very good brain" he sure doesn't seem to understand the accord he just dropped us out of. Either he doesn't understand it, or is purposely being deceitful about all of this to play to his base.
So why should we sign on to something that does not benefit us, or is even "fair"?
I would argue that it does benefit you. The USA doesn't exist in a dome, it is subject to the same climate change the rest of the planet is along with all the downsides that come with that. If things continue as they are you can expect worse winters in northern US States, far more hurricanes and tornados in the south/east, more wild fires in California as well as flooding throughout the entire country along with the loss of property and life that comes with that.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
I am from Australia and even our government sponsored ABC News run anti-Trump "opinion" and "analysis" articles daily on their news site http://www.abc.net.au/news/ and have done ever since he was elected. It is ridiculous and shows a complete bias on their part. I don't think there is any maliciousness involved, just a bunch of people involved in an echo chamber constantly reinforcing their group-think.
The ABC's Chris Uhlmann did the Trump G20 "tear down" a few months ago. He then toured the US blowing his own horn, and now works for a commercial TV network here in Aus. If that wasn't enough, the ABC had other "journalists" follow up with more front page "analysis" pieces touting how wonderfully insightful the tear-down was. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
The ABS website have even had a sections called "Trumps America" as a way of highlighting him since he took office.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/don...
The content has calmed down now since the USA amazingly didn't implode when he took office but look back and see the bias they have run against him since he became president. The language, the content, what news they have chosen to omit.
But hey, at least it gives content to second rate comedians:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/pro...
The United States was the only country to make concrete promises. There was no way to verify that other countries kept their vague promises.
Of course you have a citation for this? Because without one it's sounding an awful lot like Trumpbabble.
The US should reduce its pollution, but never enter into such a lop-sided "agreement".
The US produces a lop-sided amount of pollution right now, so any agreement will have lop-sided measures. The world is naturally lop-sided, so calling for absolute perfection or nothing is pretty lame.
That's bogus logic. If Trump was that bad the US would be nosediving.
Let's give it a couple more years before declaring success ok?
The American people hired him to drain the swamp.
Yeah, yeah draining in the swamp. Good one. We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?
It is clear that the establishment...
The Establishment? What exactly is that? Because from here it looks like Trump is the Establishment. I mean it's rough playing victim when you know, you actually run the country. How long does Trump keep blaming others fro everything before he actually takes responsibility for something?
It is not a prediction. The candidates that Donald Trump endorsed lost tonight by much bigger than expected margins. The elections are over and the votes have been counted. Even the Virginia House flipped from Republican to Democratic.
He hasn't been able to get a single bit of his landmark legislative agenda passed. The greatest deal-maker to have ever lived can't seem to cut a deal.
All of the polls...all of them, including the right-leaning ones, show Trump at his lowest approval ratings since he was elected. Here's a conservative website that has the news for you:
https://www.realclearpolitics....
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well when you start off with a 98% approval rating it is hard to go up.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Yeah, don't start partying yet. From what I see all that is happening is democrats are ether getting reelected or more democrats are just replacing democrats. Not really a big win for democrats as the status quo doesn't change.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe, not as it relates to the climate accord. He simply reversed the Obama era commitment to pay billions of US tax dollars unless the powers that be agreed to a renegotiation. They rejected it.
Obama ran an end run around congress and committed the US to billions every year.
And where in the Paris Climate deal was the US required to pay into the Green Climate Fund?
In the end, China (a country that pollutes twice as much as the US) is allowed to continue to 2050 and will receive money from the fund. India, which is also heavily polluting will also be allowed to continue and even increase their pollution while still receiving payment from the fund.
As it should be, countries who are modernizing and have far lower per-capita emissions are given more slack than countries who have grown rich using up the planet's budget for carbon emissions.
The US is responsible for only a few percentage points more in pollution than the EU, yet the US would have to carry the largest burden. According to numerous sources the US has already met the goals set forth in the accord through renewable energies.
If you don't want to play catchup then don't slack, besides, if the fall of coal is giving you the reduction for free then what are you whining about?
Nothing is keeping the other countries from stepping up their commitment in order to meet the shortfall cause by the US pulling out.
Ah yes, the good ol' "I can exploit the system as much as I want because someone else will pick up the slack."
Comments like that make me hope that in 20 years the US finds itself on the receiving end of punitive sanctions for its inaction in response to global warming.
I stole this Sig
I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so.
Well apart from the guy who runs the country, who was responsible it's rejection, who said so himself with his own words: https://twitter.com/realdonald...
Or is this fake news?
Trump didn't deny climate change as these media outlets would have you believe
Ok stop with the fake news/evil media thing. This is straight from the clown himself: https://twitter.com/realdonald...
So - your argument isn't that it transfers $100 billion to foreign Governments, but rather transfers $100 billion to large corporations who then donate $100 billion worth of goods and services to foreign Governments?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"The obligations of the US are very different than those of Syria or any other country. "
It is not that the US hasn't been a major contributor in the past which lead to the level of CO2 we're at now and to the problem we're facing now. You want fair, the US would have to do way more than is in the Paris climate deal.
Bert
Fallacy. Appeal to popularity.
And if the Paris Climate deal wasn't a good idea then literally every other country on the planet wouldn't have signed on.
It benefits them, but the deal does not benefit the US. You know that and are being an asshole, which is why you wrote:
I've been ignoring the ACs but this isn't the first comment to say something like this and the ignorant theme is starting to get annoying.
There seems to be a delusion that the Paris Climate deal is some sort of conspiracy aimed at the US and all the rest of the planet is out to screw you over.
Well it's not all about you, other countries are making sacrifices too.
You know where I'm from? Alberta. Our economy is based on oil, not just any oil, the oilsands which are really hard (ie expensive) to extract and process.
You're worried that your country might give a few billion to some developing nations to help them transition to renewables?
When the world starts transitioning from oil the price is going to plummet, when the price plummets the big expensive oilsands will be one of the first casualties.
I don't know exactly what that's going to do to my province... but it's going to be bad. Mass unemployment and bankruptcies, huge downsizing of the economy, my current employer may not survive, most of my friends and family are going to be adversely affected. I'm guessing I have at lot more at stake than you my dear AC.
But I'm not pretending that AGW isn't happening, and I'm not spinning excuses to justify why Alberta should exempt from taking action. I'm acting like a grownup and dealing with the situation. AGW is a problem for everybody and my province needs to cut back on its emissions, it needs to use the time and wealth it has to diversify its economy. And I need to plan my future for the possibility I'll have to move.
I stole this Sig
Unless you can buy me a new planet, still the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why have you singled out the UK?
France spends more on defence than the UK, both in absolute terms and as percentage of GDP.
France is also higher than the UK on the Military Strength Index.
You are literally the most stupid person you know.
I don't get it. You post that US inner cities are not safe and everyone keeps trying to argue that you're wrong, US inner cities are not safe!?! Come on, we can do better at reading comprehension. I know it.
We are reducing emissions more than any other country by the increasing use of natural gas, and replacing coal-fired generating stations as the go obsolete (and NOT by gov't edict that causes a good generating station with a lot of service life to be wasted - Waste, that's what gov't does, always.) We're building wind and solar out the wazoo, although those efforts amount to still a tiny fraction of the more reliable sources of power of coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear.
Getting out of the damned agreement was all about not shipping cubic money out of the country to pay for OTHER COUNTRY's climate mitigation efforts. We make agreements and act like we have a bottomless pit of money, when in actuality we teeter on the brink of economic collapse with a 20+ Trillion Dollar Debt. We have to stop doing stupid shit, and paying for the rest of the world's climate efforts, which will be like paying them for anything else - the money will end up decorating some potentate's palace - is stupid shit.
China is doing incredibly well, vastly exceeding its already aggressive targets: http://climateactiontracker.or...
"Chinaâ(TM)s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked more than a decade ahead of its Paris Agreement NDC commitment to peak its CO2 emissions before 2030. The latest analysis from the Climate Action Tracker indicates that CO2 emissions may, in fact, already have stopped increasing and reached peak levels.
The on-going reduction in coal use for the third year in a row has had a major impact... China has already surpassed solar PV deployment target for 2020, and has now doubled its PV target for 2020 in response..."
Their main criticism is that the NDC target is too low (50-70% below 2005 levels) and should be further reduced to meet the maximum 2C global temperature rise goal, which is likely to happen in the next 5 year plan.
Here's the US assessment, by the way: http://climateactiontracker.or...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"Virtue signalling" is a term asshats use to signal they are asshats.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Don't knock yourselves out patting yourselves on the back. You won several minor elections in the grand scheme of things. After that spanking democrats took in 2016 it is expected that you would get some of your shit together a year later.
I mean lets be real. Virginia and Washington state where already blue in theory if not practice. Now that its official it just makes you a bigger target in 2018.
But 2018 is where it will matter. If Trump can convince voters to remove both republican and democrat obstacles in 2018 then things will finally be on track. The 2018 elections will probably be the turning point to see if Trump will win or lose in 2020. Those elections are what matters.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Well since the obama legacy for the most part has been scrapped, the truth is we are not running on the obama legacy. Almost all of the economic upturns happened after Trump was elected, with a great deal of them taking place before he was sworn in. Hopefully, soon the obama nightmare will be a few notes in the history book.
Make no mistake about the ACA, its is almost done. Any real incentives to keep it have been done away with. It's only a matter of time before it is replaced with a better healthcare plan. An no, none of the bills put forth so far would have kicked millions off healthcare. What it would allowed is for millions to opt out of healthcare since they would not longer be forced to buy it.
It is easy to say that you added millions to insurance rolls when those millions had no choice in the matter. What ACA proponents love to leave out is most of the time that insurance was substandard to the point of being useless because of high deductibles. You also conventionally leave out that this substandard insurance lowered the bar for everyone, even those with already good insurance. Lowered it to a point that that insurance was useless too because of high deductibles.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Some changes to the economy did happen during obama term. They happened at the ass end of it after we found out that Hilary lost. So they happened despite Obama, not because of him.
You should really stop trying to put your spin on what I said. Opting out isn't the same as losing insurance. Weather you or obama like it or not, there are some people that don't want to pay for health insurance. It is not the governments job to force them to do so. Once that burden has been lift, I think it already has, you will be free to chose not to have it if you don't want it. Not the same as losing it.
Here is the cold hard facts about Obama. His legacy is done. The only thing really left is Obamacare. The government has seen to leave it in place till it is replaced. It is just a matter of time before it is gone. It was a bad law so good riddance.
I think we are done here. Obama legacy is in the tank, and Trump is doing a pretty good job as president, despite his personality short comings. Yup, we are done here.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Yup, your TDS is in full swing. I bet you think that Trump is going to get impeached too. You should remove those blinders, take a step back, and take a good look around.
First fact. Hillary is never going to be president.
Second fact, Trump isn't going to get impeached.
Third fact. Despite the nonsense you just spouted Trump is doing a good job as president. He has some personally short comings that should be worked on but one you look past those you see he seems to have things well at hand.
An that is just a simple fact. You can bleat and wish otherwise but it won't change reality. Well I think we are done here too.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.