So I presume that with his “97% of carbon comes from nature” line, Clive Palmer is looking at one half of the carbon cycle and neglecting to subtract that which is reabsorbed into oceans, forests, etc. Or something like that. Whatever the case, it makes very little sense. But has he got himself all confused over this, or is he willfully misleading people? I can’t decide. Am really interested to know what others think.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 01:55:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015