This page is being updated.

Thank you for your interest in this topic. We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt. If you’re looking for an archived version of this page, you can find it on the January 19 snapshot.

(the above is from the EPA website)

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Friday evening that its website would be “undergoing changes” to better represent the new direction the agency is taking, triggering the removal of several agency websites containing detailed climate data and scientific information.

One of the websites that appeared to be gone had been cited to challenge statements made by the EPA’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt. Another provided detailed information on the previous administration’s Clean Power Plan, including fact sheets about greenhouse gas emissions on the state and local levels and how different demographic groups were affected by such emissions.

The changes came less than 24 hours before thousands of protesters were set to march in Washington and around the country in support of political action to push back against the Trump administration’s rollbacks of former president Barack Obama’s climate policies.

“As EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land, and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency,” J.P. Freire, the agency’s associate administrator for public affairs, said in a statement. “We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we’re protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.”

The agency also said it would carefully archive pages from the past administration.

The change was approved by Pruitt, according to an individual familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, to avoid a conflict between the site’s content and the policies the administration is now pursuing.

The staffer described the process of reviewing the site as “a work in progress, but we can’t have information which contradicts the actions we have taken in the last two months,” adding that Pruitt’s aides had “found a number of instances of that so far” while surveying the site.

[Ed. Note:  BOLD is added at this website]

Translation–Pruitt’s aids are saying they aren’t going to let facts get in the way of the new reality under Trump. They will simply do away with those facts.

The new website will, in all probability, have altered “facts’ to fit the new reality.

To me, hiding facts from the American people is just so wrong and so unAmerican. It is wrong to change basic truths for political gain.

Somehow I think “priorities” isn’t really what is being changed.


50 Thoughts to “Altering facts to fit your reality”

  1. Cato The Elder

    Another translation: if you’re going to propagate man-made climate change hysteria and celebrate the mental illness that goes along with it, you’ll have to find a non-taxpayer founder website to do it on, at least for the next four years.

    1. @Cato,
      Do you know how “I’ve drunk the Kool-Ade” you sound?

      Are you saying that man has no impact no our environment at all?

      I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

      1. steve thomas


        Study concludes that current climate-alarmists are wrong. Antarctic ice is increasing, temperature is cooling.

        I’ve said this before; You want to tackle smog in places that have smog, regulate what chemicals flow into rivers, or put quotas on fishing when populations decline, I’m with you. These are clearly man-made impacts, that can be dealt with. However, you want to bankrupt entire economies using junk science and Hollywood, and then persecute those who disagree with the “settled science”, I will fight this. I don’t buy the whole global-warming schtick one bit.

        I know that volcanic eruptions and Sun Cycles are the biggest influencers of climate, and that throughout geologic history, our climate has oscillated through a warming/cooling cycle…long before man mastered fire.

      2. If volcanic eruptions influence climate, then what on earth do 2 billion cars daily do?

        I call for happy medium. No one wants to bankrupt a country nor ignore clear and soon to be present dangers. From what I have read, the impact isn’t all over but in certain spots.

        I firmly believe that man has an impact on the earth and that behaviors can and do influence climate and the water systems. We need to be studying what to do about current conditions regardless of the cause.

      3. Steve Thomas


        “We need to be studying what to do about current conditions regardless of the cause.”

        There’s the rub. When the global warming crowd has been caught manufacturing data, and makes alarming predictions that do not come to pass, when the air-quality and water-quality of the greater US environment (minus a few problem locales) is better than it has been since the advent of industrialization, the whole argument that “current conditions” require drastic, mandated actions, are being met with healthy skepticism by a significant portion of the public.

        I’ll give you a great example: Incandescent light-bulbs. These “evil” inefficient pieces of technology were such big contributors to CO2 emissions, the Obama administration UNILATERALLY banned them. Never mind they were becoming more efficient every day, or cost a fraction of the alternatives. They needed to be BANNED. The choice? Compact Florescent Lights. “More efficient” (marginally). Never mind that they cost 30-40 times the equivalent incandescent, or contained mercury, requiring special disposal, or the manufacturing process generated several times the CO2. Nope. We needed to switch now, and Obama knew better.

        But the market knew better. People hoarded incandescent bulbs. LED manufacturers went to work perfecting this technology. The result? LED’s are direct replacement, longer lasting, prices low and falling, manufacturing to bulb-life less CO2 intensive, and they use 50% less power than the CFL. It was the MARKET that decided these were better. Not the government. Not “scientists”, not Bill Nye. No, it was dollars and cents.

        People forced against their will, are of the same opinion still.

      4. Now let’s be honest…Obama didn’t ban the incandescent light bulb. Oy Vey.

      5. Steve Thomas


        “Now let’s be honest…Obama didn’t ban the incandescent light bulb. Oy Vey.”

        Who isn’t being honest?

        “”I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs – a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills.” -BHO,

        Between his DOE’s regulatory actions, and his “liberal” application of the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” , he applied the same types of tactics used for firearms, to incandescent lightbulbs. Did he issue an EO outlawing incandescents? No. What he did was attack features and used regulations to implement a de facto ban. The ban is on the manufacture or importation of bulbs that don’t meet certain regulatory standards. The DOE police won’t come to your door and confiscate your Sylvania 100W bulbs, but try to find one at your local store. You can’t get them.

        I have poured over the US Constitution throughout my adult life, and I have never been able to find anything except the much abused “commerce clause” that gives the Federal government, let alone the executive branch, the authority to regulate what type of lightbulb I choose to put in my house.

      6. I just bought about 20 at Giant. Unless they are fake incandescents….

      7. Steve Thomas


        When current stocks are exhausted, no more incandescents. You might be able to get a 20W to run your scentser or potpurri pot, but you won’t be able to get something above 40W.

        Look, I sell LED’s as part of my job. I know the regulations and the status of the supply-chain, so I know what I am arguing is true. Not saying that LED’s aren’t a better solution, they are, and I’ve converted most of my own home. I did it for financial reasons…as the cost/benefit proved out. I didn’t do it to save the whales or the snails, the bees or the trees. I did it to save money over time. But the Obama Admin didn’t incentivize LED’s, they implemented a defacto ban on incandescents. They were too busy dumping money into Solar Energy and Wind companies, most of whom when bankrupt…all in the name of trying to keep his ridiculous promise to halt the rise of the oceans.

      8. Groan. Solar and wind energy is still in its infancy or at least toddlerhood. Maybe our homes aren’t going to be heated with solar. Maybe natural gas is a better solution for now. However, look at the improvements in solar energy.

        We are behind 40 years with renewable energy. Reagan pretty much squashed it. Yes, I know this because my husband was a liaison between contractors and the federal government. He represented one of the regional renewable energy complexes. He also stupidly voted himself out of a job.

      9. Steve Thomas


        The problem with wind and solar, as even my “crunchy-con” brother-in-law, a certified Mechanical Engineering genius will admit, is that it isn’t reliable, as the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. Another problem is it is only suited for supplying local needs. Cost is another factor, as the ROI on solar and wind is atrocious. Yo may be able to change the cost dynamic through economy of scale, but you can’t make the sun shine or increase the frequency of the wind. Geothermal is the way to go, and we are only just beginning to tap this.

        However, nothing we have now, or even in the beta stage can compete with the internal combustion engine for transportation. Sure we have a smattering of electric cars here and there, but these are only suited for local commuting. Get outside a metro area, and there is zero infrastructure to support these vehicles. The only remotely viable option is a system of “swappable” batteries at gas stations, but again, this would require a redesign of current and planned vehicles, and an enormous capital outlay to establish the infrastructure needed to support this system.

        I’ve listened to Ted talks, and other podcasts, read numerous articles in various publications. Ingenuity and good intentions always hit the wall of practicality very quickly, when “reversing climate-change” is examined.

        But I am firmly convinced that it is the market that will make this happen, if it is to happen. Not the government. Not Al Gore, and the rest of the Hollywod-environmentalists, who want us to live like the Amish, while they go on living in style . It won’t be for the sake of “climate change” either. It will be because it’s “better than what we have”, and “better” being measured in dollars and cents.

      10. I think people do care about the environment. Even if they don’t, better fuel efficiency is something all but the super rich have demanded. I don’t think most of us want to get rid of internal combustion, I think we want to build a better mouse-trap.

        Additionally, who amongst us wants factories dumping chemicals and waste in our rivers and streams. No one wants that crap in the water table either. Then there are all the things I don’t know much about.

        Geothermal is very expensive to start up and maintain. My brother had it in his house. It was very expensive to repair. Worked like a charm but….

        I do encourage the gov. to reward those who use more fuel efficient products both residentially and in business. I also want hazards restricted and those who sneak around and damage our environment should be fined.

        Can climate change even be reversed? Don’t we want to slow things down?

      11. Kelly_3406

        steve thomas,

        Thanks for linking to this paper. The time period of this Antarctic cooling is roughly consistent with the climate warming pause, which has been hotly contested as to whether it really exists (prior to the recent El Niño).

        I do not know whether most of you can see the full paper behind the paywall, but the Acknowledgments section always lists the funding agency for the work.

        This work was funded by the Portuguese Science Foundation. A proposal on this topic probably would not have been funded in the United States.

      12. Steve Thomas


        If only the Neanderthals had heeded the climate change warning, they wouldn’t have caused the last major ice age. What with all of their fires heating their caves, releasing all that CO2, is it any wonder? The should have listened to Al OxGore. He did all those cave drawings displaying the “settled science” of it all.

        No, you had all of those stone age “climate deniers”, claiming that it was just a natural part of the oscillation of the Earth’s climate over time, and pointed to the previous 4 ice ages experienced to that time, sandwiched between warming periods, and said there was no way that they and their fellow cavemen could be causing this.

        Silly Neanderthals. Deserved to go extinct.

      13. And by George, they did.

        So Steve, you are saying that the climate of the earth is not impacted by carbon emissions and green house gases?

        I don’t want scientists with proven theories to be silenced. I think that’s how we find truths…by continually adding and deleting information. What I oppose are people without real scientific background trying politically to alter our thinking.

        I go back to the family who didnt want me teaching about the space program because it was all a hoax by NBC.

      14. Steve Thomas


        “So Steve, you are saying that the climate of the earth is not impacted by carbon emissions and green house gases?”

        Yes, when the source of those emissions is not on the scale of a massive volcanic eruption which would hurl enough carbon and CO2 into the atmosphere that the normal carbon cycle would be overwhelmed. Are the “green-house gases” causing the climate to warm, or to cool? Well, first, according to environmental alarmists, we were on the verge of cooking to death, but when it appeared that this wasn’t happening, now we’re on the verge of a new ice age. The finally settled on “climate change” because they can’t seem to get any prediction right.

        “What I oppose are people without real scientific background trying politically to alter our thinking.”

        You mean folks like Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy”, who has a degree in Mechanical Engineering? What about Obama and his “settled science” comments. When last I checked he admitted that he focused on getting high and leftist political thought, in college.

        “I don’t want scientists with proven theories to be silenced.”

        See, that is the problem. In order for a theory to be “proven” true, it must be able to be replicated by others, using the same EVERYTHING. To date, no “climatologist” has been able to do this, AND, they have been caught, red-handed, manipulating data to achieve a predetermined result. NASA has been caught. The UN has been caught. NOAA has been caught. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact.

      15. I disagree about the EVERYTHING premise. There are definitely different ways to test a hypothesis. Sometimes different tests yield the same results. We aren’t talking about flipping coins.

        My problem is that people who generally think like you do seem to think this is an all or nothing proposition. I am pretty comfortable with many of the scientists in the field. It isn’t just climatology.

  2. Robin Hood

    How’s the weather in Moscow where you obviously are?

    1. Robin Hood

      Robin Hood,

      Note to self:

      Pay attention to the difference between Comment and Reply.

      (My last comment was supposed to be a reply to Cato. Nothing personal, but we all know where the really fake news is coming from.)

  3. Kelly_3406

    This blog community claims to support science and the scientific method. If this claim is true, then contributors/commenters should respect those who challenge accepted scientific theory. These challengers are critically important for the advancement of science — if a given theory cannot withstand challenge, then it has to be modified or discarded. Sometimes the most exciting science discoveries are counter intuitive.

    Rather than attacking those who challenge accepted climate theory, this group should applaud them for their courage. If their challenges to climate theory turn out to be wrong, they are still doing valuable research. Despite being called names and having to fight tooth-and-nail for funding, these researchers continue to thanklessly soldier on.

    1. Robin Hood


      My issue is with Cato’s use of words such as “hysteria” and “mental illness.” There is no hypothesis, no data and no explanation offered for that. My objection is against the alt-right’s use of verbal abuse and fake news to oppose ant development of alternative sources of energy that could reduce dependence on products produced and sold by Russia.

      Having lived through the oil embargo of the 1970s, my preference would be to learn from history rather than repeat it. This means we need to develop other options for future use when needed and we also need to protect ourselves against unwanted consequences of human activity. I used to work in the gasoline retailing industry but I value any research that helps us deal with climate change simply for the purpose of preparedness.

      As I noted in a previous discussion, I grew up in a region that mined and exported coal. So what research is being done to clean up the mining process, not only for the environment but also the miners? What research is being done to prepare for the miners who will need a livelihood after the automation of this industry?

      Isn’t it wiser to prepare for the future than to try to justify the past?

      1. I don’t understand why anyone feels that coal is a preferable way to heat anything. Are any of the coal proponents old enough to have been in a house heated by coal? How about cooking on a coal stove? What a filthy fuel. I can remember my great aunt going out in the cold to put coal in the furnace. I guess at the turn of the century (long before MY time) they were lucky to have coal. However, those days are past. Then there is strip mining. Holy cow, what an ugly mess. The by products of that practice have damaged the environment horribly. Then there is the disease that plagues miners. How much do we pay a year to coal miners for their black lung disease? I don’t suggest that we stop paying them but isn’t it cheaper to have them not get fossil fuel related diseases in the first place?

      2. Steve Thomas



        I think your understanding of how coal is used today is a bit “dated”. There’s no way, short of a total collapse of everything, would we go back to shoveling coal into stoves and furnaces, to be burned. Gasification is a much more efficient use of this carbon-based fuel. The “coal-fired” electric plant, steam-boiler, or other generator is a thing of the past.

        Check our the DOE site which explains all of this:

        Gasification technologies developed for coal, are also being used with wood waste and other plant-based waste-product.

        As for the miners, again, I think your perception is based more on a Tennessee Ernie Ford song than it is on what coal mining is like today, in this country. Safety regulations and technologies have improved the lot of the miner much. I do think the “return of jobs” will be short-lived though. Automation will quickly replace people in the mines.

      3. Robin Hood

        Steve Thomas,

        What a rarity that we could agree on something! The miners need to be prepared for automation as well as jobs involved in cleaning up the mess but they also need a chance to prepare for new careers with more of a future.

        On the other hand, after the oil spills and mining disasters we have witnessed even in recent years we should understand that safety regulations have been ignored by the operators of these facilities and now you do not have an administration that can be trusted with enforcing them.

      4. I have no desire to get that close to the coal industry. I believe I put that in there because younger people really have no clue what it was like to use coal as a product. My grandparents had outfitted our house with an oil boiler by the time I came along but my aunt had not done so yet. I think she sold the house and built herself a more modern one. I have seen people cook on coal stoves a few times. My family didnt but plenty of country people did.

        I disagree with you about miners. Many of the tasks of miners have become more automated. That doesn’t make mining any less dangerous. In fact, I just read last night that miners now get black lung after only working a few years. Why? That mechanization creates more and finer coal dust. There is no way I am going to buy into it being a safer job. That’s just one hell of a miserable way to earn a living.

      5. Robin Hood


        Something has to be done to safely adapt available energy resources to meet human needs as well as protect the environment. These competing needs have to be balanced in order for us to survive. My concern now is that this administration can’t be trusted to do much of anything.

      6. I totally agree.

        This morning I made obligatory call to Rep. Wittman’s office to remind him to vote no on the health care bill. That sounds like a disaster that is going to just crucify my wallet.

      7. Robin Hood


        That’s Trump! He wants to send them back to the mines with no plan for the future and take away their health insurance.

      8. He sure doesn’t seem to have thought it though. I just don’t think he cares.

      9. Kelly_3406

        Robin Hood:

        Isn’t it wiser to prepare for the future than to try to justify the past?

        Emissions seem to be dropping and temperatures seem fairly stable over the last decade. Even though we have seen record high temperatures, the temperature trend has been very small. We should wait and see if these trends continue before allowing the government to introduce new regulations.

        I am okay with government-funded research as long as the funding process does not discriminate against skeptics who seek to disprove parts of accepted climate theory.

      10. Robin Hood


        If you recall what you have read on this very long thread I have not been the one to address competition for research funding. But I did object to calling climate change theory “hysteria” and “mental illness” without offering any research to back it up.

        All of my references to the past have been to lessons that can be learned from history. I certainly don’t defend oil spills and mining disasters and I do want safety enforced.

  4. middleman

    The science behind global warming is well established and fairly easy to understand, even for a layperson like me. CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat, fossil fuel burning creates CO2, and we’re burning more fossil fuel than ever, resulting in the highest levels of CO2 in the atmosphere ever seen, hence the warming effect resulting mostly from fossil fuel sources. Will it be catastrophic- no one really knows, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do what we can to mitigate it while stimulating new technologies. This is obviously good for the economy AND the environmental issue.

    This idea that addressing climate change will result in “bankrupting entire economies” is purely a scare tactic. The government has led the way on many environmental initiatives and this economic argument was used each time without ever coming to fruition. Government initiatives were used to solve the ozone hole in the 80’s, greatly reduce auto emissions starting in the 70’s, clean up the waterways starting in the 60’s, and on and on. Each time, there was pushback from industry that claimed all manner of financial ruin if the legislation was enacted. Every time, government leadership initiated by citizen involvement drove technological development that addressed the problem. The reason that LED bulbs became viable, for example, is due to the government initiative to eliminate inefficient incandescent bulbs- the government helped create the market, just like with solar energy, battery technology, wind technology and much more. Once the market was created, the technology took off.

    The problem now is that with our fiscally unbalanced economy, industry has become so powerful that it can literally stop the effects of scientific progress through legislation and control of poilticians. Citizen involvement is negated by total corporate control of government. Look at Trump’s cabinet and agency heads- they’re full of wall streeters and oil/gas/coal exec’s. Congress is populated with minions of industry. When industry is driving the bus it will always protect its current business model and profit schema at the expense of newer technologies.

    1. Kelly_3406


      I hate to break it to you, but CO2 is a wimpy greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide can cause very modest warming, but the large warming predicted by climate models is due to water vapor, which is the king of the hill in terms of trapping heat.

      The current theory is that as CO2 increases, it induces modest warming, which causes the climate system to respond in such a way that more water vapor enters the atmosphere. As water vapor increases, so too should the surface temperature of the Earth increase strongly.

      The differences we see in warming predicted by various global models are due primarily to the differences in how they treat water vapor and clouds as CO2 increases.

      But here is the kicker. Even though CO2 has increased substantially in the atmosphere, water vapor has not. In fact, research results conflict as to whether water vapor is increasing or decreasing in the atmosphere. Until water vapor is definitively observed to be rising, there is not much cause for concern about large temperature increases (in my opinion).

      The ozone hole is a different story. It was great science done with ground-breaking experiments and brilliant insight. Society is awaiting a similar break through to resolve the debate on climate change.

      PS Government support of electrc cars fueled by hydrogen cells is a bad idea. The product of hydrogen combustion is water vapor, which as noted above, traps more heat than CO2.

      1. middleman


        The water vapor/CO2 relationship is tricky and appears to be the latest issue being used to muddy the waters on climate change. Here’s a link that explains your rising/falling issue:

        I don’t think anyone knows exactly how impactful the effects of warming will be, but there’s lots of reasons to reduce fossil fuel burning besides global warming. Stream and mountain destruction, ground water issues, coal ash issues, PM 2.5 issues, pipeline leaks (major and minor) well blowouts, oil tanker leaks, methane emissions, fracking earthquakes and on and on. It’s a win-win-win-win-win (you get the idea!).

      2. Robin Hood


        Relax, friend!

        There are some folks here who remind me of an old saying . . . “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.”

      3. middleman

        Robin Hood,

        Oh, I’m relaxed, believe me. Climate change is a mostly academic discussion for me- I’m an old guy. I won’t be alive to see many of the negative effects, and neither will Trump, Tillertson, and the rest of the old white guys running the country.

      4. Kelly_3406


        Are you retired? I am curious what you do (or did) professionally, if you do not mind my asking.

        I was in the military — retired as a Colonel. My current work is in Physics in basic science and in applied applications.

        I ask all this because where one falls in all this depends to some extent on where one comes from. My background is with the government, but I also have patents which I am trying to market to corporations. The barriers are not insignificant.

      5. Kelly_3406


        The US economy has gotten weaker and less competitive over the last 20-30 years. Wages have stagnated and economic growth has steadily declined.

        What makes you so sure that “government leadership” on environmental issues is not a major factor in this multi-decade erosion of the economy?

        Several important industries have left my home town and thus many people there became unemployed. The town is working hard to attract industry and create new jobs. I am not so sure that they would agree with you about the win-win-win proposition of regulation.

      6. Huge CEO pay to frozen worker pay contributes as does Overseas work. Business doesn’t give a crap about the economy past itself.

      7. Kelly_3406


        Really? That’s the cause of the ills of the US economy? Greedy CEOs and evil corporations taking the economy down require saintly bureaucrats in DC and Richmond to protect the American worker.

        This crowd seems to have the world view that government is good and corporate America is bad. CEOs have grandkids and daughters too. Sure there are bad actors, but there are a lot of good actors whose good deeds don’t make headlines.

        Don’t you think it is possible that the high cost of regulations and Obamacare may have been a consideration in driving corporations to relocate out of the country?

        Middleman makes a fact-free assessment that all the wonderful environmental legislation in the last 40 years did not have the significant financial impacts to business that opponents claimed it would.

        How does he know? How do you know? When companies state that regulation is making it hard to stay competitive, perhaps we should listen to them instead of sissified 30yo activists reporting in the Huffington Post.

      8. No, I really don’t think Obamacare had much to do with corporations moving. In fact, by the time we got Obamacare, many had already moved all or part out of the country.

        I don’t think all corporations are bad and you put a few words in my mouth.

        I do think corporate greed is at fault and I also think the huge paychecks given to CEOs are simply obscene. I also think the amount it takes to get elected to office is obscene.

      9. middleman


        It would be instructive if you identified the environmental issue or issues that you feel helped erode the economy. I would be interested to know what industries left your home town. For the most part, shifts in industrial output are more market driven than due to regulation. The federal government can smooth the way for new technology in areas that are nesessary for environmental protection, but job losses in those interventions are usually offset by jobs in new technology. Coal is a perfect example- solar power jobs grew by 25% last year.

        By the way, if by “economic growth has steadily declined” you mean that the rate of economic growth has decreased by 1 or 2 percent (which is quite different), there are a lot of reasons for this, but economists seldom mention environmental regulations as a prime driver:

        As to wage stagnation, this is an entirely different problem. American workers have not benefitted from productivity increases in the past 30 years as they did from 1950-1980. I would be amazed to see anyone produce evidence that this phenomenon is related to environmental regulation!

      10. Kelly_3406


        The article that you linked state that the economy has becom stagnant because the pace of innovation has declined. If you google ‘regulation slows innovation’, you will see a bunch of articles that describe the adverse impact of regulation on innovation, and hence, economic growth. Here is one example:

      11. middleman


        Kelly, you’re cherry picking to try to support your argument. The article I sourced named monopolies, not regulation, as a major reason for the slow down in innovation and start-ups, and the slow down in innovation was only one reason among many cited as possible causes for the slow down in the rate of economic growth in the USA. Even the article you cited lists regulation as one of two possible major causes of innovation decline, and they don’t differentiate between environmental regulation and all the others. You want to ignore all the other causative issues and blame environmental regulation as THE factor without any evidence. And you ignore the costs to growth if we had not had environmental regulation.

    2. Middleman, your comments have brightened my day. Basically you have said that money talks in a very succinct way.

      There is also a huge attempt to sissy-fy initiatives that are environmental.

      1. Robin Hood


        Just the use of the word “sissy” tells you what kind of people you’re dealing with. No reason, no evidence, just insults.

        We live in a country that invaded Iraq and elected Trump. France stayed out of Iraq and rejected Le Pen 65-35. Vive la France!

      2. Steve Thomas

        Robin Hood,

        “France stayed out of Iraq and rejected Le Pen 65-35. Vive la France!”

        When do you plan to move there? When can I use my little French and wish you “Bon Voyage”?

      3. [Stern look from the moon-howler]

        I am certainly glad they rejected Le Pen.

      4. Robin Hood

        Steve Thomas,

        With a president like Trump it has to be an option. When are you moving to Russia?

Comments are closed.