"Whether we like it or not" - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15194539
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, anyone can read the evidence that Spencer spread misinformation.

And the evidence that he was paid by oil companies.

Anyone can see for themselves that such "evidence" consists of nothing but dishonest smears and unsubstantiated allegations.
#15194541
Truth To Power wrote:Anyone can see for themselves that such "evidence" consists of nothing but dishonest smears and unsubstantiated allegations.


Please cite the specific passages in the text I quoted that are "dishonest smears and unsubstantiated allegations", thanks.

I will address your other post shortly.
#15194549
Truth To Power wrote:It is a fact well known to everyone who knows anything about climate, and not controversial:

"The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... tudy-finds


From your source:

    Extreme temperatures kill 5 million people a year with heat-related deaths rising, study finds

    More people died of cold than heat in past 20 years but climate change is shifting the balance

    More than 5 million people die each year globally because of excessively hot or cold conditions, a 20-year study has found – and heat-related deaths are on the rise.

    The study involving dozens of scientists around the world found that 9.4% of global deaths each year are attributable to heat or cold exposure, equivalent to 74 extra deaths per 100,000 people.

    It’s prompted calls for better housing insulation and more solar-powered air conditioning, as well as warnings that climate change will increase temperature-linked deaths in the future.

    Researchers analysed mortality and weather data from 750 locations in 43 countries between 2000 and 2019, and found the average daily temperature in these locations increased by 0.26C per decade.

    The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. But heat-related deaths were increasing, while cold-linked deaths were dropping.

    Monash University’s Prof Yuming Guo, one of the study’s lead researchers, said this trend would continue because of climate change, and total mortality rates may go up.

    “In the future, cold-related mortality should continue to decrease, but because the heat-related mortality will continue to increase, that means there will be a break point,”
    Guo said.

    He said in Europe there had already been an overall increase in the rate of deaths associated with temperatures.

    “If we don’t take any action to mitigate climate change … more deaths will be caused.”

    The study, published in the journal the Lancet Planetary Health, took into account the differing optimal temperatures for people living in different regions.

    “Populations have the ability to adapt to local weather,” said Guo.

    The highest heat-related excess death rate was in eastern Europe, while sub-Saharan Africa had the highest mortality rate linked to cold temperatures.

    …..(article continues)….

Note that all the bolded phrases indicate that heat related deaths are rising steadily from climate change, which directly contradict the claim that we have nothing to worry about in terms of climate change caused mortality.

It is also important to note that most deaths from cold are in one of the poorest regions of Earth, where there is no central heating and biomass is one of the main fuel sources. The heat deaths, on the other hand, occur mostly in industrialised countries with air conditioning.

"They found that seven per cent of deaths registered during this period were attributed to temperature-related fatalities, and that cold-related deaths were 10 times higher than heat-related deaths."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-envi ... -1.5500941

Here's the original peer-reviewed article:

fixed link

"Globally, 5 083 173 deaths (95% empirical CI [eCI] 4 087 967–5 965 520) were associated with non-optimal temperatures per year, accounting for 9·43% (95% eCI 7·58–11·07) of all deaths (8·52% [6·19–10·47] were cold-related and 0·91% [0·56–1·36] were heat-related)."


From the link to the first study in your article source:


    Findings

    Overall, 7·17% (95% CI 5·81–8·50) of deaths registered in the observational period were attributed to non-optimal temperatures, cold being more harmful than heat by a factor of ten (6·51% [95% CI 5·14–7·80] vs 0·65% [0·40–0·89]), and with large regional differences across countries—eg, ranging from 4·85% (95% CI 3·75–6·00) in Germany to 9·87% (8·53–11·19) in Italy. The projection of temperature anomalies by RCP scenario depicts a progressive increase in temperatures, more exacerbated in the high-emission scenario RCP8.5 (4·54°C by 2070–2099) than in RCP6.0 (2·89°C) and RCP2.6 (1·67°C). This increase in temperatures was transformed into attributable fraction. Projections consistently indicated that the increase in heat attributable fraction will start to exceed the reduction of cold attributable fraction in the second half of the 21st century, especially in the Mediterranean and in the higher emission scenarios. The comparison between scenarios highlighted the important role of mitigation, given that the total attributable fraction will only remain stable in RCP2.6, whereas the total attributable fraction will rapidly start to increase in RCP6.0 by the end of the century and in RCP8.5 already by the middle of the century.

So this study corroborates the other study that also shows that heat related deaths are on the rise due to climate change, and that the number of heat deaths will be higher than the reduction of deaths due to less cold.

So all of your evidence shows that if we want to avoid temperature related deaths, then we should deal with climate change.

Thanks for the info!

The fact that you require evidence for it proves that you are not numbered among those who know anything about climate.


Ad hominem. Ignored.

No, that's just another of your absurd and disingenuous non sequitur fallacies -- but see above.


So we agree that during the last few years in Canada (one of the coldest countries on Earth), your claim is incorrect and more people died from cold.
#15194563
Pants-of-dog wrote:More people died of cold than heat in past 20 years

Proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You are just sad, now.
but climate change is shifting the balance. More than 5 million people die each year globally because of excessively hot or cold conditions, a 20-year study has found – and heat-related deaths are on the rise.

Which means the world will be at the right temperature when it is 50-50. So we have a ways to go before rising temperatures can be considered more of a threat than stable temperature.

Thank you for proving me right and yourself humiliatingly wrong again.
It’s prompted calls for better housing insulation and more solar-powered air conditioning, as well as warnings that climate change will increase temperature-linked deaths in the future.

If by "climate change" you mean the earth getting cooler. Because clearly, if the earth gets warmer while the ratio is so wildly unbalanced, it will mean fewer overall temperature-related deaths. Proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong.
The study found more people had died of cold than heat over the two-decade period. But heat-related deaths were increasing, while cold-linked deaths were dropping.

Which is good, as there are so many more of the latter.
Monash University’s Prof Yuming Guo, one of the study’s lead researchers, said this trend would continue because of climate change, and total mortality rates may go up.

Right: if climate changes for the colder, proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again, total temperature-related mortality rates may indeed go up.
“In the future, cold-related mortality should continue to decrease, but because the heat-related mortality will continue to increase, that means there will be a break point,” Guo said.

Right. Which we haven't reached yet and are not close to, proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again.
He said in Europe there had already been an overall increase in the rate of deaths associated with temperatures.

Because it got colder, and anti-fossil-fuel religious kooks stopped people from getting access to the fossil fuels they needed to survive. Anti-fossil-fuel religious kooks don't seem to mind eviscerating millions of human sacrifices on the altar of their anti-human deity every year.
“If we don’t take any action to mitigate climate change … more deaths will be caused.”

But even more will be caused if we stop climate change before the 50-50 break point is reached. So you are basically advocating the murders of millions of people every year -- human sacrifices laid on the altar of your ridiculous anti-CO2 religion. Just think: a Holocaust of excess deaths every couple of years purely because of YOUR absurd and disingenuous anti-science trash.

How will you apologize for murdering millions?
Note that all the bolded phrases indicate that heat related deaths are rising steadily from climate change,

But not as fast as the cold-related ones are falling, proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again.
which directly contradict the claim that we have nothing to worry about in terms of climate change caused mortality.

You mean the claim that is an outright fabrication on your part? That claim? No one here has claimed that climate changing for the colder would not increase mortality.
It is also important to note that most deaths from cold are in one of the poorest regions of Earth, where there is no central heating and biomass is one of the main fuel sources.

And your anti-fossil-fuel kook religion wants to stop them from getting access to fossil fuels, so that they will keep dying by the millions from cold. Is a Holocaust every couple of years enough to satisfy you?
The heat deaths, on the other hand, occur mostly in industrialised countries with air conditioning.

No, that's of course just another baldly false claim from you. Eastern European countries do NOT generally have A/C -- they can't afford it -- and your plan is to make it even less affordable by artificially restricting the supply of energy. So your whole kook religion revolves around human sacrifice:

"Anti-fossil-fuel nonscience, in its majestic equality, sacrifices millions of poor people who can't get access to fossil fuels to keep warm, just as it sacrifices thousands of somewhat less poor people by depriving them of access to fossil-fueled electric power to keep cool."
-- Truth To Power (with apologies to Anatole France)
From the link to the first study in your article source:
    Findings

    Overall, 7·17% (95% CI 5·81–8·50) of deaths registered in the observational period were attributed to non-optimal temperatures, cold being more harmful than heat by a factor of ten (6·51% [95% CI 5·14–7·80] vs 0·65% [0·40–0·89]), and with large regional differences across countries—eg, ranging from 4·85% (95% CI 3·75–6·00) in Germany to 9·87% (8·53–11·19) in Italy. The projection of temperature anomalies by RCP scenario depicts a progressive increase in temperatures, more exacerbated in the high-emission scenario RCP8.5 (4·54°C by 2070–2099) than in RCP6.0 (2·89°C) and RCP2.6 (1·67°C). This increase in temperatures was transformed into attributable fraction. Projections consistently indicated that the increase in heat attributable fraction will start to exceed the reduction of cold attributable fraction in the second half of the 21st century, especially in the Mediterranean and in the higher emission scenarios. The comparison between scenarios highlighted the important role of mitigation, given that the total attributable fraction will only remain stable in RCP2.6, whereas the total attributable fraction will rapidly start to increase in RCP6.0 by the end of the century and in RCP8.5 already by the middle of the century.

So this study corroborates the other study that also shows that heat related deaths are on the rise due to climate change,

But not as fast as cold-related deaths are declining. So warming climate will continue to be a positive benefit until the balance point is reached some decades in the future (assuming CO2 controls global temperature, which it does not). Proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again.
and that the number of heat deaths will be higher than the reduction of deaths due to less cold.

No. Not "will." That is just another false claim from you. Would if there were any plausible reason to believe that the earth will get several degrees hotter due to fossil fuel consumption, which there isn't.
So all of your evidence shows that if we want to avoid temperature related deaths, then we should deal with climate change.

By making sure the earth doesn't get any colder. Right.

Thanks for the info!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
So we agree that during the last few years in Canada (one of the coldest countries on Earth), your claim is incorrect and more people died from cold.

No, my claim is objectively correct because NINE TIMES as many people died from cold as from heat worldwide, and I will thank you to remember it.
#15194570
Truth To Power wrote:Proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You are just sad, now.

Which means the world will be at the right temperature when it is 50-50. So we have a ways to go before rising temperatures can be considered more of a threat than stable temperature.

Thank you for proving me right and yourself humiliatingly wrong again.

If by "climate change" you mean the earth getting cooler. Because clearly, if the earth gets warmer while the ratio is so wildly unbalanced, it will mean fewer overall temperature-related deaths. Proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong.

Which is good, as there are so many more of the latter.

Right: if climate changes for the colder, proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again, total temperature-related mortality rates may indeed go up.

Right. Which we haven't reached yet and are not close to, proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again.

Because it got colder, and anti-fossil-fuel religious kooks stopped people from getting access to the fossil fuels they needed to survive. Anti-fossil-fuel religious kooks don't seem to mind eviscerating millions of human sacrifices on the altar of their anti-human deity every year.

But even more will be caused if we stop climate change before the 50-50 break point is reached. So you are basically advocating the murders of millions of people every year -- human sacrifices laid on the altar of your ridiculous anti-CO2 religion. Just think: a Holocaust of excess deaths every couple of years purely because of YOUR absurd and disingenuous anti-science trash.

How will you apologize for murdering millions?

But not as fast as the cold-related ones are falling, proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again.

You mean the claim that is an outright fabrication on your part? That claim? No one here has claimed that climate changing for the colder would not increase mortality.

And your anti-fossil-fuel kook religion wants to stop them from getting access to fossil fuels, so that they will keep dying by the millions from cold. Is a Holocaust every couple of years enough to satisfy you?

No, that's of course just another baldly false claim from you. Eastern European countries do NOT generally have A/C -- they can't afford it -- and your plan is to make it even less affordable by artificially restricting the supply of energy. So your whole kook religion revolves around human sacrifice:

"Anti-fossil-fuel nonscience, in its majestic equality, sacrifices millions of poor people who can't get access to fossil fuels to keep warm, just as it sacrifices thousands of somewhat less poor people by depriving them of access to fossil-fueled electric power to keep cool."
-- Truth To Power (with apologies to Anatole France)

But not as fast as cold-related deaths are declining. So warming climate will continue to be a positive benefit until the balance point is reached some decades in the future (assuming CO2 controls global temperature, which it does not). Proving me right and you humiliatingly wrong again.

No. Not "will." That is just another false claim from you. Would if there were any plausible reason to believe that the earth will get several degrees hotter due to fossil fuel consumption, which there isn't.

By making sure the earth doesn't get any colder. Right.

Thanks for the info!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No, my claim is objectively correct because NINE TIMES as many people died from cold as from heat worldwide, and I will thank you to remember it.


None of this is clearly written. Again, please write in clear and complete sentences. It is not our job to parse your argument out of these sentence fragments.

The evidence has been presented.

It clearly shows that heat related death is on the rise because of global warming.

And again, in Canada during the last year, 1260 people died of heat. On average, 80 people die from extreme cold each year in Canada. So, it is objectively incorrect to argue that more people died of cold than heat in that place at that time.

In fact, heat causes more deaths in terms of extreme events, even if cold kills more poor people in developing nations during the winters.

Truth To Power wrote:You already did. Those were the ones.


Then people can read for themselves and decide for themselves if the criticism against Spencer are "dishonest smears and unsubstantiated allegations", thanks.

You are obviously not going to show how the claims are dishonest or unsubstantiated.
#15194613
I have no idea if the global cooling study had to be retracted.

There was a recent study that was retracted. It claimed that global warming was due to the sun, and has since been shown to be wrong.
#15194614
Pants-of-dog wrote:None of this is clearly written.

It's all absolutely clear. Stop gaslighting. I was a professional writer and editor for many years. I can be accused of many things, but unclear writing is not one of them.
Again, please write in clear and complete sentences. It is not our job to parse your argument out of these sentence fragments.

They aren't sentence fragments. They are perfectly clear. You just have to pretend you can't understand them because you have realized that they demolish and humiliate you for your absurd and disingenuous trash.
The evidence has been presented.

And it is disingenuous and deceitful trash.
It clearly shows that heat related death is on the rise because of global warming.

Yes, and that cold-related death is declining even faster than heat-related death is increasing, again because of global warming. So it clearly shows that global warming is SAVING LIVES. You just have to contrive some way to prevent yourself from knowing that fact.
And again, in Canada during the last year, 1260 people died of heat.

Evidence? Of course not. All you can offer are disingenuous and frankly dubious claims that heat "might have contributed" to hundreds of "excess deaths" -- that not coincidentally occurred in the middle of a global pandemic.
On average, 80 people die from extreme cold each year in Canada.

Evidence? And how many die of extreme heat "on average," hmmmm?
So, it is objectively incorrect to argue that more people died of cold than heat in that place at that time.

Which is presumably why you felt you had to make that argument up and falsely attribute it to me.
In fact, heat causes more deaths in terms of extreme events,

Evidence? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you are talking about people who die in fires.
even if cold kills more poor people in developing nations during the winters.

So why do you want to keep killing them by preventing them from using fossil fuels to keep warm, and by preventing the world from warming to a more salubrious temperature like that of the Holocene Optimum?
Then people can read for themselves and decide for themselves if the criticism against Spencer are "dishonest smears and unsubstantiated allegations", thanks.

They can indeed, thanks.
You are obviously not going to show how the claims are dishonest or unsubstantiated.

They are dishonest and unsubstantiated on their face. There is nothing more to show.
#15194615
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have no idea if the global cooling study had to be retracted.

Indeed.
There was a recent study that was retracted. It claimed that global warming was due to the sun, and has since been shown to be wrong.

Then you will be able to provide evidence of such.

I'm waiting.
#15194616
Truth To Power wrote:
No it's not. It's a fabrication.

How about instead of your constant idiocy, you go learn something?



The liar tries to accuse me of lyin'...

"One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider’s paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.

However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: “We just don’t know…at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when.”

The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity.

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."

There were a couple scientists that had to retract their paper, but I did get some details wrong, but they don't call into question my basic assertion: the global cooling thing never became accepted science.

This was big, expensive science back then. There were 2 secret research projects, very expensive, and the only good ones, and they both found warming. DARPA did one, and an oil company did the other...

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z79TLmKIui


Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z79TLd2pJr


Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z79TLWYO5T


Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z79TLLVOSm
#15194617
Truth To Power wrote:It's all absolutely clear. Stop gaslighting. I was a professional writer and editor for many years. I can be accused of many things, but unclear writing is not one of them.

They aren't sentence fragments. They are perfectly clear. You just have to pretend you can't understand them because you have realized that they demolish and humiliate you for your absurd and disingenuous trash.

And it is disingenuous and deceitful trash.

Yes, and that cold-related death is declining even faster than heat-related death is increasing, again because of global warming. So it clearly shows that global warming is SAVING LIVES. You just have to contrive some way to prevent yourself from knowing that fact.

Evidence? Of course not. All you can offer are disingenuous and frankly dubious claims that heat "might have contributed" to hundreds of "excess deaths" -- that not coincidentally occurred in the middle of a global pandemic.

Evidence? And how many die of extreme heat "on average," hmmmm?

Which is presumably why you felt you had to make that argument up and falsely attribute it to me.

Evidence? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: you are talking about people who die in fires.

So why do you want to keep killing them by preventing them from using fossil fuels to keep warm, and by preventing the world from warming to a more salubrious temperature like that of the Holocene Optimum?

They can indeed, thanks.

They are dishonest and unsubstantiated on their face. There is nothing more to show.


Again, I am not going to read all this and rewrite it into something legible.

The evidence has been presented and it is clear that heat deaths are rising and have already surpassed cold deaths in certain places, and that climate change is increasing the total number of deaths.

Truth To Power wrote:Indeed.

Then you will be able to provide evidence of such.

I'm waiting.


And you can continue waiting until you ask for evidence nicely.

If anyone wishes to read it, just look up “Retracted: Paper claiming climate change caused by distance from Sun”.
#15194640
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, I am not going to read all this and rewrite it into something legible.

All readers know that what I wrote is perfectly clear and grammatical, and that you are just gaslighting again.
The evidence has been presented and it is clear that heat deaths are rising and have already surpassed cold deaths in certain places,

A small minority of places. Everywhere else, global warming is decreasing deaths from cold faster than it is increasing deaths from heat. So it is REDUCING total temperature-related mortality. The mental contortions you have been demonstrating in your pathetic attempts to evade that fact are truly sad to witness. A once-proud human mind, reduced to such ignominy by a misplaced allegiance to anti-scientific hysteria mongering...
and that climate change is increasing the total number of deaths.

No; you have offered no evidence for that claim, and will never be.
And you can continue waiting until you ask for evidence nicely.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
If anyone wishes to read it, just look up “Retracted: Paper claiming climate change caused by distance from Sun”.

That's it? Some kook paper that claims the earth's orbit changes rapidly enough to cause century-scale warming and cooling is your example of "the global cooling paper" that "had to be retracted"??

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You are just sad, now.
#15194641
late wrote:The liar tries to accuse me of lyin'...

Reported.
There were a couple scientists that had to retract their paper, but I did get some details wrong, but they don't call into question my basic assertion: the global cooling thing never became accepted science.

So you have nothing, and were just makin' $#!+ up again. Thought so.
This was big, expensive science back then.

Just not empirically valid science.
#15194643
Truth To Power wrote:All readers know that what I wrote is perfectly clear and grammatical, and that you are just gaslighting again.


Then write a single clear sentence explaining your argument.

A small minority of places. Everywhere else, global warming is decreasing deaths from cold faster than it is increasing deaths from heat. So it is REDUCING total temperature-related mortality. The mental contortions you have been demonstrating in your pathetic attempts to evade that fact are truly sad to witness. A once-proud human mind, reduced to such ignominy by a misplaced allegiance to anti-scientific hysteria mongering...

No; you have offered no evidence for that claim, and will never be.


The evidence you cited and then I quoted clearly shows that heat related deaths are rising and the total number of deaths is increasing.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's it? Some kook paper that claims the earth's orbit changes rapidly enough to cause century-scale warming and cooling is your example of "the global cooling paper" that "had to be retracted"??

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You are just sad, now.


No, I never claimed it was about global cooling. You must have misread.
#15194654
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then write a single clear sentence explaining your argument.

CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature.
The evidence you cited and then I quoted clearly shows that heat related deaths are rising and the total number of deaths is increasing.

No it doesn't. It shows total temperature-related deaths decreasing, just as any scientifically literate person would expect given that climate has warmed and cold-related deaths are nine times heat-related deaths.
No, I never claimed it was about global cooling. You must have misread.

No, that was the topic.
#15194655
For what it is worth Truth to Power, in another thread, claimed that some scientist around 1900 showed that adding CO2 to sea level air did NOT cause that air to absorb more infrared light being radiated out to space, AND this meant that adding CO2 to the Earth's air doesn't and can't cause that Earth's air to absorb more heat being radiated into space.
. . . I responded that that is true, however, adding CO2 to the Earth's air also adds CO2 to all the other higher air not just to sea level air, AND that the additional absorbing happens at higher elevations. So, it is possible that adding CO2 to the air does cause it to absorb more heat being radiated out to space. We know that it does adsorb more heat being radiated up and out to space.
. . . He just stopped responding.

This entire argument about more people dying from heat or from cold is besides the point. The numbers are very small compared to the numbers who are now finding that they can't live where they ancestors have lived for 10k years. They can't survive there because climate change means they can't grow crops. Billions will be displaced in the next 10 years according to computer projections. And, it is likely that when the Earth heats up by 4 deg. C more, there will be no place on Earth that people can live (and this condition will go on for 1K to 10K years). The Earth will go on, and some life somewhere will also. It is just that we care more about ourown species, than all the others.
#15194697
Truth To Power wrote:CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature.


Please provide a link to a peer reviewed study.

Quote the relevant text.

No it doesn't. It shows total temperature-related deaths decreasing, just as any scientifically literate person would expect given that climate has warmed and cold-related deaths are nine times heat-related deaths.


No, you must have misread.

No, that was the topic.


That was the topic you and late discussed. I never claimed to be discussing that topic. Perhaps this idea of yours (that I was discussing the same topic) was what caused you to misread my post.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 32
freemasonry and its goals

one thing is certain - the thirst for power and co[…]

-kill millions of Muslims, continue killing Muslim[…]

That's what I mean - you only insist once. If she[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

@Godstud, Today I found this that supports my cla[…]