When I read someone describe the struggle for human civilisation as "raping the planet" I want to strip them naked and leave them in the woods with nothing but sticks and stones. I think you'd die before nightfall, and your corpse would weigh exactly the same as it did before your last breath.

That's more of a response than my explanation of purpose - on page one got.

"I disagree with the assertion that the earth is over-populated. Rather, technology is misapplied. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Harness limitless clean energy from the core of the earth - we could capture carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle everything, farm fish etc - and so support human population, at high levels of welfare, even while protecting forests and natural water sources from over exploitation. The climate and ecological crisis is not a matter of how many people there are, but rather, that we have applied the wrong technologies, because we use science as a tool of ideology, but ignore science as an understanding of reality in its own right.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows? It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it."

That's a description of purpose in terms of following in the course of the fundamental truth relation between the organism and reality - in order to secure a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind, and you, ghost hunter, say I'm cheapening the forum? How's about you take your scooby-do bullshit and enter an egg sucking competition with it? You'd win a participant certificate for sure! But it's not philosophy!

Oh, I'm sorry. Were you serious? Is the idea of a ghost in your corpse somehow related to the question of purpose in life? How so?

I knew someone who believed in the theory of the soul leaving the body, detectable as a weight difference, so much that he had it arranged so that he would be weighed before and after death. Cost him a fortune, and he had to weigh himself to the gram everyday. Because he was dead - he never got to learn the results of his experiment; but he was proven right! There was a weight difference - of 8 pounds. He was decapitated in a motorcycle accident!

It wasn't the takeaway message for the Nazis!

This is predictable. Try to get beyond this thinking of "left" and "right." That's reducing things to the level of sports teams. — Xtrix

A polarised political landscape is not my doing, nor subject to my choice. I disagree with the PC line for whatever reason - statistics, developmental psychology, and I'm automatically branded a right wing hate monster. I'm not, but nor am I a craven, left wing, white guilt ridden sap - willing to have my opinions dictated to me. I think Peterson is much the same; only better at exploiting it.

In part, but it's also environmental. It's nature and nurture; in that a genetic pre-disposition was fostered by an environment in which sexual opportunity was monopolized by alpha males.

As opposed to a basis in the supernatural? — Michael

As opposed to a basis in deviant psychology!

Exactly. He's great at exploiting "outrage" manufactured by the media — Xtrix

I agree.

mainly conservative media — Xtrix

I disagree. It's lefty media who are outraged by him. See Cathy Newman.

Gives the right an "intellectual" — Xtrix

I disagree again. I don't believe Peterson set out to be a spokesman for the right. I think he set out to be a psychologist - and got drawn into the left's culture war. It's because the left's positions are scientifically incoherent, that Peterson is cast as right wing. Sure, he plays the game for his own benefit, and he makes a lot of money.

conservative political persuasion have come to largely dismiss or reject: academia and science — Xtrix

Again, no - I don't think so. Since the sixties there's been a "hippy vibe" - for want of a better term, in science and academia, pitched against the establishment viewpoint. The left wing used this as a platform to launch a culture war; a movement that has philosophically rejected the scientific fundamentals. Peterson's psychology is grounded in science, and draws conclusions without deference to the hippy vibe. He's beloved of the right because he's a good scientist - whereas, the left are not.

It is off topic. I'm not at all keen to get into a debate about gender theory; particularly one that states a political position as a fact - without any explanation.

the existence of a body is not equivalent to the categorisations of either sex or gender we give might give to them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree, and so does the science. Developmental psychologists like Piaget - note distinct differences in play patters and behaviours between boys and girls that cannot be attributed solely to socialisation.

Likely, because it's offensive. I don't think that's a good reason to delete it myself. I think offensive questions have to be asked. Perhaps - "Is homosexuality a defect?" would have been a better title, and were that the question, then I would have to answer, no!

Homosexuality is a consequence of evolution in a hunter-gatherer tribal context, wherein sexual opportunity was monopolised by the alpha male and his lieutenants. Homosexuality among excluded males allowed for bigger tribes, better able to compete. So, no - homosexuality is a natural consequence of evolution, and was an advantage.

It's only very recently, in evolutionary terms - that hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups, and it was in the context of the social group that marriage - or enforced monogamy, gave access to sexual opportunity for all. Traditionally, this was arranged marriage with scant regard for anything like romantic love. The primary purpose of marriage was procreation and inheritance.

In this multitribal social context, homosexuality became delegitimized - even criminalised in favour of the enforced monogamy of marriage; but as marriage based in romantic love became normalised homosexuality is cast in a different light. It's more accepted now, because we believe people should be with who they are attracted to; and homosexual attraction has a basis in nature.

I empathize with your suggestion, but I think it's the wrong area to try and force progress.

The dissolution of truth is a natural consequence of a struggling society and of an "empire" at risk of collapse. In the contemporary US, this presents itself as an unprecedented denial of objectivity-- mostly on the Christian right, in my opinion, but in certain sectors of the left too. We need to address the underlying issues that cause this dissolution of truth as opposed to delineating a Science Party.

While I think that the lost art objectivity is generally better-preserved on the left than on the right, I could not name a certain "chunk" of the political spectrum that I think would undeniably fit the Science Party. — Rosie

The difference is that right wing incoherence is actually based in the ignorance of historical belief, and is a compromise to accommodate that - in the context of freedom of speech and opinion. There are people who believe the earth was made in seven days - well, so what? Everyone knows why they believe that; and why they refuse to accept the fact the earth is billions of years old.

The left's incoherence is both deliberate and dictatorial - like for example, how facts matter when talking about climate change, but don't matter when talking about gender. Their position on truth is one of convenience to the power game they're playing; like Doublethink from Orwell's 1984:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

I've seen that heat difference engine approach used - I think it was a program called Grand Designs, where they follow people building their own homes from scratch. As you say, pretty small scale. Produces some power for domestic use - and not a bad use of materials, if you happen to be digging a foundation.

So, many small bore holes rather than a few big ones. — Bitter Crank

I suppose it's technologically possible now, to drill holes big enough to drive trains through, but the decisive factor - I think is, that I'd be drilling through hot volcanic rock - at temperatures upward of 500'C. My best guess for how the drilling would proceed - is inside an envelope of supercooled gas - preferably, not flammable gas, so maybe, nitrogen. The nitrogen would cool the drill bit; and I think this would impose limits on the size of the bore hole. Further though, geological stability might come into play with anything much bigger than a couple of feet wide. So, yes, many small bore holes - with inlet and outlet pipes - cold water in, hot steam out. Alternatively, it may be possible to just drill straight through - past the magma chamber, and pump cold water in one end, and harness hot steam jetting out the other.

You really don't think there's even so much as an active debate among scientists about the positions you espouse as 'scientific'. — Isaac

Could you be more specific? There are debates, about all sorts of things, but increasingly, the social sciences are being politicised by the left. The degree to which 'the humanities' are politicised was demonstrated by the Lindsay Sheppard affair - in which a faculty panel destroyed a teaching assistant for showing a lecture by Peterson.

Fortunately, she recorded the inquisition to which she was subjected - and one has to wonder, in that kind of stultifying atmosphere, what real science is possible? Just as the left have no respect for freedom of speech, they have no respect for freedom of thought, or conscience, or scientific objectivity. So please, be specific.

it ended with me apparently representing him correctly and just being wrong for disagreeing. — Kenosha Kid

Is that what you got from that? No. I should clarify. I'm saying that left wing politically correct positions are adopted for the purposes of causing disruption; and if you think they're moral goods - you're ignorant and delusional, and engaged in some kind of proselytizing post rationalisation.

That's a very shallow cover for an ad hominem attack. I have read some evolutionary psychology - but not particularly with regard to gender or male female relationships. My concern was political theory - hierarchy and social morality, evident among chimpanzees - from Jane Goodall, into human society through structuralists like Levi Strauss, unto political theorists like Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith, John Rawl's and so on.

I haven't read everything, but I have read extensively. It's always open to you to cite your hypothetical:

alternative (equally scientific) positions — Isaac

or, drop the act and just call me names!

Peterson came to public attention because he refused to use politically correct gender pronouns; and I think that is key to understanding who he is, and why he's so popular. He refused to be bullied by political correctness extremists.

Remember the Cathy Newman interview on Channel 4. I have no wish to demonise Cathy Newman, but in typical news media style, it was a gotcha interview, wherein Peterson was bombarded with gotcha questions, and he refused to be intimidated and answered those questions. I think they got into it over the supposed gender pay gap.

Then, far lefty keyboard warriors like Kenosha Kid - take those examples out of context and claim this typifies Peterson's message, but it doesn't. This quote:

"...it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake."

....is so endlessly reproduced out of context by craven left wing bullies citing other craven left wing bullies, the original context doesn't appear in a google search.

Forced monogamy is not something Peterson advocates as government policy. Rather he identifies it as the response of nature and civilisation to the monopolization of sexual opportunity by alpha males, and a violent competition for hierarchy. It's nothing that Claude Levi Strauss hasn't said in discussing the kinship relations of hunter gather societies. This is from Peterson himself:

"My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee this week at discovering my hypothetical support for a Handmaid’s Tale-type patriarchal social structure as (let’s say) hinted at in Nellie Bowles’ New York Times article presenting her take on my ideas.

It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression (so that everyone doesn’t die). The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues, as most societies have come to realize (pair-bonded marriages constituting, as they do, a human universal (see the list of human universals here, derived from Donald Brown’s book by that name)."

https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/media/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

The problem with politically correct lefty keyboard warriors; apart from their overwhelming ignorance, is their overwhelming ignorance of the implications for society - of their supposed moral goods.

I'm wondering about heat transference. what is the medium between the hot magma and the pipes in the chamber containing the water that is to be turned into steam? — Bitter Crank

Ceramic probe around X20 - P91 chromium steel pipes.

How big a bore hole are we talking about? — Bitter Crank

I'm looking at letting the entire facility into the side of the volcano - with bore holes of 18" diameter drilled from inside the facility, toward the magma chamber - at a depth of around 1km.

How much heat transfer surface will be needed to absorb the heat necessary to superheat the water in the pipes? — Bitter Crank

The ceramic probe is designed like the element inside a kettle - coiled around, with the liquid (not necessarily water) flowing in and out of the probe. The surface area coverage exposed to heat could be maximised in various ways; including flattening the pipes - but this is problematic, because smoothness of the interior is an issue with superheated steam. It was a problem for steam trains. Irregularities allowed for condensation, reducing the steam pressure.

How much heat will be lost from the steam between the bottom of the well and the turbine? Is the amount of heat loss significant? — Bitter Crank

This depends on the liquid used, the pressure and temperature available, the depth of the bore hole and the smoothness of the pipework. Using water, and assuming a steam temperature of 190–230˚C, jet velocity of 100 m/s at a pressure of 200 kPa - in a bore hole 1km deep, it would take 10 seconds from the probe to the surface. Depending on the thermal qualities of the pipework, my guess is it wouldn't be a huge issue. These are all good and relevant questions - I wish I could answer more precisely, but it's all still very preliminary.

.

I don't see any costs in there, nor risk assessments. — Isaac

Me either. It's almost as if that's not possible at this stage.

Oh, and the other thing that would be interesting to hear is why, if it's cheaper, lower risk and lower environmental consequence, yet produces free energy - why is no-one doing it already? Why are firms investing in low return industries when they could be selling electricity at half the price of their competitors and still making a huge profit? — Isaac

I don't know. Why, at one time - did people carve glaciers into chunks and transport the ice thousands of miles, when they could just have invented the refrigerator? Madness!

For an indication of what's possible, we could look at IDDP-1.

"The borehole of this well was unintentionally drilled into a magma reservoir in 2009. The hole was initially planned to drill down to hot rock below 4,000 metres (13,000 ft), but drilling was ceased when the drill struck magma at only 2,100 metres (6,900 ft) deep. This same occurrence has only been recorded once, in a Hawaiian geothermal well in 2007, but in that instance, it resulted in the sealing and abandonment of the hole.[6]

In IDDP-1 the decision was made to continue the experimental well, and upon inserting cold water into the well, which was over 900 °C (1,650 °F). The resultant well was the first operational Magma-EGS, and was at the time the most powerful geothermal well ever drilled. While not producing electricity on the grid, it was calculated that the output of the well would have been sufficient to produce 36 MW of electricity.[7] ...."

I think there are more accessible magma deposits, and better techniques for extracting energy - not least, containing thermal expansion inside pipes, to produce high pressure superheated steam - to drive turbines, to generate electricity. I'd envisage a considerable improvement in energy yield; above and beyond the 36MW potential of this one hole.

To put that in context, 36 MW is five £250m windmills worth of energy; only constant, high grade energy - not intermittent, low grade energy that will forever require fossil fuel back-up.

Generally, I think Peterson is viewed favourably by philosophers, and unfavourably by left wing ideologues. The left hate him because he's not down with their post modernist, politically correct crusade to subjectivize and undermine what one might term the natural order. Rather, Peterson seeks to identify the evolutionary and cultural mechanisms of the natural order and translate them into social and political life. As a philosopher, I think that's a reasonable approach - relative to a left wing crusade to nowhere.

I believe it can be done. The idea would be to drill through hot volcanic rock - close to magma chambers, but not into magma chambers. As you so astutely recognise, magma is pressurised - like a fizzy drink. There are gasses dissolved into molten rock under enormous pressure, and if that pressure is released, it explodes. Drilling for magma energy is not risk free. It's dangerous stuff, but the risks can be minimised, and the potential rewards are beyond measure.

the philosophical point of this discussion: it is unreasonable to posit a single viable response to a complex issue. The rational response is to try multiple solutions.

You don’t seem to agree. — Banno

The new political spectrum I envisage ranges from ideological traditionalists to scientific rationalists, and on that spectrum, I'd place your argument on the middle ground. You're hedging your bets, and that's not an unreasonable response to a complex issue - for you. I am more toward the scientifically rationalist end - because I know more about the solution I devised, and my claim is - that's not unreasonable for me.

In my view, we cannot afford a 'less energy' approach to the future - because of entropy. Civilisation is a designed state that takes energy to build and maintain. Balancing human welfare and environmental sustainability in our favour - in a manner that is socially, politically and economically sustainable requires vast amounts of energy. A 'less energy' approach implies trouble - people forced into poverty by dictatorial government, forever after. How can that work? I wouldn't even start down that road.

I believe that magma power is more than adequate to meet global energy demand; I'd be looking to exceed global energy demand two or three times over in order to extract carbon from the air, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle all our waste etc - very energy intensive processes nonetheless necessary to a long term sustainable future.

nothing here says that geothermal is the best solution for Siberia. — Banno

Liquified hydrogen fuel contains 2.5 times the energy of petroleum - so, given that:

"Remote parts of Siberia are too costly to connect to central electricity and gas grids, and have therefore historically been supplied with costly diesel, sometimes flown in by helicopter."

Using magma energy to produce electricity, and electricity to produce hydrogen - would allow 2.5 times as much energy per kilo to be flown in to remote locations. And it would be clean energy.

I'm not at all sure a second referendum was Corbyn's position on brexit. It was very unclear - I seem to recall, while his economic manifesto was decidedly left of Clause IV, and seemed designed to scare Tory Remainers back into the brexit fold. Remember that Kinnock could not get Labour elected while clinging to Clause IV - so for Corbyn to reintroduce it is inherently suspicious. My own view is that Corbyn wanted brexit - but didn't want his fingerprints on the murder weapon. He was a bogey-man - elected to the Labour leadership by a populist propaganda campaign and £2 entryism - running in parallel to the Leave propaganda campaign - beginning in 2010 with Cameron promising to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and UKIP appearing from nowhere, suddenly on every TV channel at once, telling Cameron something a Prime Minister with a first class degree in PPE from Oxford should have known.

All this aside, it remains that the working class majority feel abandoned by Labour because they have been abandoned by Labour. Labour are utterly in thrall to political correctness - and spend all their energies massively over-representing the interests of relatively small sections of society. The "isms."

East Anglia ONE - UK offshore wind array, 102 turbines, 7 MW each, producing 714 MW - enough for 600,000 homes. It took 10 years to build, and cost £2.5bn.

The UK has 30 million homes. So roughly, that would require 6000 windmills, costing £1500bn - ish. Only from 2030 - UK government intend phasing out petrol cars, adding the transport energy demand of 30 million cars to the national grid. So 10,000 windmills costing £2500bn. Plus storage facilities - because wind is intermittent. Wind turbines have a working life of around 25 years, and then need replacing. So, rather than repeat myself - I'll repeat myself:

Wind and solar are profitable industries, but they are not adequate to the challenge. They cannot produce enough power to meet our needs. Wind and solar will cost a fortune, barely produce a trickle of unreliable power - and then in 25 years, present us with a big pile of tech scrap and the same costs all over again - all to produce slightly less carbon. But there is a source of clean energy sufficient to the task; and more! Magma power - the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet. It is high grade energy, its constant, and virtually limitless. Tapping into magma energy on a massive scale would change everything - we could meet all our energy needs, and capture carbon and bury it, not merely producing a little less carbon - but reversing the tide. — counterpunch

That's something of an understatement. It wasn't just that Labour didn't win. The party was badly damaged. Traditional Labour voting areas in the North abandoned Labour en masse. How do you explain that?

assuming they were aware of the problem in 2015, why is that a reason to oppose Northern Powerhouse? — Michael

I didn't say oppose. I said - hold the Tories to their promises. I said kick up a fuss that the Northern Powerhouse amounted to two train stations getting two coats of paint. The only quote you could find was at the launch of two rival policies, by two parties grubbing for votes, and both policies ultimately amounted to nothing. It's one of the rare occasions the North has been mentioned at all - whereas, the drum beat of political correctness is a constant and deafening cacophony. If Labour worked half as hard making noise on behalf of the white working class as they do for their upside down identity politics - there wouldn't be former industrial and coastal ghost towns full of disadvantaged white kids.

Right, because prior to 2015 - everything was peachy in England's "former industrial and coastal towns" - was it? Labour wouldn't know would they?

So, when the Tories promised a Northern Powerhouse and failed to deliver, why didn't Labour hold them to their promises? Why did Labour allow the Northern Powerhouse to amount to two train stations getting a coat of paint?

Because, as mentioned earlier - Labour don't give a fuck about the working class anymore.

Why would they? — Michael

Because of the BBC news story I posted. Was that not clear? Rhetorical question. There's no need to answer. You're obviously not sincere.

What's odd is counterpunch's notion that one solution needs must fit all categories; that digging a hole in the Earth will be the best solution in Iceland and the Sahara. — Banno

Wind and solar are profitable industries, but they are not adequate to the challenge. They cannot produce enough power to meet our needs. Wind and solar will cost a fortune, barely produce a trickle of unreliable power - and then in 25 years, present us with a big pile of tech scrap and the same costs all over again - all to produce slightly less carbon. But there is a source of clean energy sufficient to the task; and more! Magma power - the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet. It is high grade energy, its constant, and virtually limitless. Tapping into magma energy on a massive scale would change everything - we could meet all our energy needs, and capture carbon and bury it, not merely producing a little less carbon - but reversing the tide.

Let me ask you a question; how do you get solar energy out of the Sahara? What's odd is that you haven't thought about that; not that I have thought about it. The basic physics is very clear - because of entropy, less energy is worse. We need more energy, and magma can provide as much as we can use.

No, I can't - but it's a stupid question, because it doesn't require the opposition to endorse a policy for it to be enacted. They just need to abstain. It would be very strange indeed, for Labour to positively endorse Conservative policies - but that doesn't mean they are opposed. For example, the Northern Powerhouse amounted to the renovation of two train stations. Did Labour kick up a fuss about that? If they did, I didn't hear it. Did you?

Poor white teens in 'left behind' towns not going to uni
By Sean Coughlan

Poor white teenagers in England's former industrial towns and those living on the coast are among the least likely to go to university, warns the watchdog for fair access.

"These are the people and places that have been left behind," says Chris Millward of the Office for Students.

The watchdog has used a new measure to see which groups are likely or not to go to university.

MPs are investigating low attainment among white working class pupils.

The Office for Students has looked at overlapping factors - such as poverty, race, gender and where people live - which are indicators of whether someone is likely to go to university.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-55804123

A Science Party? Good idea. — Bitter Crank

Harnessing limitless clean energy from magma is a good idea. It's an idea that needs development, but the energy is there - and the technologies exist to extract it. It's geothermal in the same way humans and orangutans are both primates. The difference is that magma power can be shown to produce vastly more power than solar, more reliably, and more cheaply.

A human member of Sci-Pol would have to accept that, because those are the facts. (Membership policy regarding orangutans is yet to be decided!) Sci Pol is responsible to a scientific understanding of reality. A member blocking a plan going forward without scientific justification would be liable to the same sanctions as a scientist fabricating data. It's unethical. It's dishonest. The responsibility of sci-pol to a scientific understanding of reality is about methods, motives and reasoning that can be referenced to an objective truth, such that crookedness stands out like a sore thumb.

Still committing the Naturalistic fallacy, I see... — Banno

No, but thanks for asking - again.

I'm quite satisfied that I'm not committing the naturalistic fallacy because, my explanation of "how things are" - does not inform what we ought to do. Rather, examining evolutionary history demonstrates the error we have made; it explains why it's necessary to be "true to reality" to survive, and why we decried science as a heresy. I point out that this is the mistake that drives humankind toward extinction, and which it is necessary to correct to secure the future. But ultimately, despite all this, you could still argue humankind 'ought' to become extinct. Is that what you're saying?

there is absolutely no consensus on these issues. — Joshs

There is a great deal of agreement among scientists on the broad brush strokes shape of a scientific understanding of reality. How otherwise could there by a general consensus about climate change, for example, or evolution, or the bacterial theory of disease, or plate tectonics?

I'm perfectly well aware that philosophically, epistemically, all scientific conclusions are provisional, always less than certain - and always open to revision in face of new evidence. But at the same time there's a vast coherent body of informally accepted knowledge that is simply not in dispute. At least, not among scientists.

Galileo's epistemology in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is empiricism. It simply took until the 19th century for anyone to pluck up the courage to defy the Church again, and posit the possibility - less yet, significance of an empirical means to objective truth. Such that, if existentialism and empiricism are contemporaries - why the delay? Existentialism is cast as a concerted effort to disguise truth by splattering mad shit all about!

Despite you feeling disconcerted by what I wrote to you late last night, I am really concerned about the catastrophe which is likely to occur within the next couple of generations. I have been writing on that in another thread for a fortnight. I am wondering if what you are really trying to say is that the politicians are not listening enough to the findings of many of the scientists, especially on the climate and ecology. If that is, I am in complete agreement with you. — Jack Cummins

Well that's not it - so maybe look at my comments and try and get your head around what I am saying about the relationship between science and ideology. Here's a handy guide:

Science = true!
Ideology = not true!

If whilst reading my comments again, you find yourself getting a little lost, consult the handy guide.

What a splendid attitude to have, so conducive to making a positive change in the world and bringing about world peace! — baker

Sustainability. I'm seeking to bring about sustainability, with the minimal possible change in any other respect. I'm not a revolutionary. I want the powers that be to be able to get on board, because time is short. The window of opportunity to prevent disaster is closing quickly. It really matters that we have the correct approach - and less energy is not the right approach. Stop eating meat, cycle, second hand clothes, stop flying, insulate homes - it goes on and on. We cannot 'eek out' our way to sustainability. That should be obvious; even to the party opposite.

You say they're both wrong but they are the head of 2 countries, 2 major countries and they have to deal with reality and reality is that people are attached to their history and traditions and changing that takes a lot of time. — Raul

The reality is that humankind is two generations from a catastrophe we won't survive. We can solve it by acting now - and secure a prosperous sustainable future, or condemn our children and our grandchildren to hell, and our species to oblivion. That's the reality.

Are you asking me? Because as far as I'm concerned, neither of them are right. Science is right. It's true knowledge of reality - a reality that may have been Created by God. I don't know. What I can know is that science works. If you want to believe that there's a God, who am I to contradict you? I will harness scientific knowledge and limitless clean energy to secure a sustainable future. Al-Sisi can't do that and neither can Macron, so they're both wrong.