Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists - Page 2

Anon · 11-16-2005, 17:11 PM

"Well, hopefully the overwhelmingly vast majority of qualified scientists who do think that human driven global warming is a reality will encourage the government to do something about it."

LOL, what a blatant freaking lie.

barrowaj · 11-17-2005, 00:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"Well, hopefully the overwhelmingly vast majority of qualified scientists who do think that human driven global warming is a reality will encourage the government to do something about it."

LOL, what a blatant freaking lie.

Its not a lie at all, not according to our science journals. Here's an article from Science that I posted earlier. If you have any credible evidence that shows that most scientists do not believe in global warming, please share it; I haven't found any.

Quote:

"BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

barrowaj · 11-17-2005, 00:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"These are all things that the US could benefit from as well. We have a huge problem with both obesity and CO2 emissions."

Not where i sit we don't.

Fat people are fat(well, most of them), because they're lazy fuccks that eat like crap and don't exercize.

That's THEIR problem, not MINE.

Having obese Americans hurts America itself, not just the people who are overweight. You are exactly right about why people are fat. But its important to do something about it. Obesity is a disease, and should be treated as such. You could make the same claim about AIDS, and say that most people get AIDs because they sleep around and use IV drugs.

Anyway, we could try to do somehting about obesity by trying to encourage people to exercise and to eat right. Implementing some kind of incentive wouldn't cost us very much, and would certainly cost less than the problem of obesity if left alone.

dalem · 11-17-2005, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

Having obese Americans hurts America itself, not just the people who are overweight. You are exactly right about why people are fat. But its important to do something about it. Obesity is a disease, and should be treated as such.

Please. Obesity is a decision.

Quote:

You could make the same claim about AIDS, and say that most people get AIDs because they sleep around and use IV drugs.

That's exactly why most people get AIDS.

Quote:

Anyway, we could try to do somehting about obesity by trying to encourage people to exercise and to eat right. Implementing some kind of incentive wouldn't cost us very much, and would certainly cost less than the problem of obesity if left alone.

Screw 'em. Their heart attacks are not my problem.

-dale

Ray · 11-17-2005, 12:24 PM

The Politics Of Climate Change

By Andrew Lam

16 November, 2005
San Francisco Chronicle

The glaciers are melting and receding. The sea rises to swallow islands and low-lying nations. Factories spew toxic chemicals into rivers and oceans, killing fish and the livelihoods of generations. Where the forest used to be, rains cause the bare hills to slide down onto homes. And the hurricanes keep on coming and coming.

In their wake come millions who must flee house and home. Unprecedented mass movement defines our global age. But increasingly, among the displaced is a population whose status only in recent years has gained some legitimacy: environmental refugees. It categorizes people who suffer from a wide spectrum of environmental disasters, man-made or natural. Their homes have become inhabitable, veritable wastelands.

Until recently, what made a refugee in the world's eyes was largely defined in political terms. The 1951 U.N. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees defined a refugee as a person with a genuine fear of being persecuted for membership in a particular social group or class. These days, the environmental refugee -- not necessarily persecuted, yet nevertheless forced to flee -- is gaining center stage. There are, according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, approximately 18 million political, religious or ethnic refugees in the world today. By comparison, there are "only" an estimated 10 million environmental refugees worldwide. But the term "environmental refugee" has not been officially recognized, and many countries have not bothered to count them, especially if the population is internally displaced. The International Red Cross put the number as high as 25 million in 1999.

A decade ago, ecologist Norman Myers predicted that humanity was slowly heading toward a "hidden crisis" in which ecosystems fail to sustain their inhabitants and people are forced off their land to seek shelter elsewhere. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, however, as the world watched in awe and horror while hundreds of thousands of displaced Americans scurried across the richest nation on Earth searching for new homes, Myers' "hidden crisis" is suddenly not so hidden. We can, with certainty, now add a million more to this growing population of environmental refugees.

Being displaced by natural disasters may very well become the central epic of our time. Many nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations itself now estimate that the number of environmental refugees will surpass 150 million by mid-century -- due to agricultural disruption, deforestation, coastal flooding, shoreline erosion, industrial accidents and pollution. In an increasingly interconnected world, a series of environmental catastrophes could bring nations to their knees in a blink of an eye. A huge earthquake in California, for instance, could undermine the U.S. economy, and along with it, the global economy. Entire nations could disappear. The World Bank estimates that with a 50-centimeter rise in sea level, two-thirds of Bangladesh, with a population 140 million, would be underwater, resulting in countless deaths and millions of environmental refugees.

But one need not evoke dramatic risks, such as tsunamis or the impact of large asteroids, to recognize the disasters that are taking place now. China, for example, remains a hot spot of environmental disaster. It is buckling under unsustainable development, rapid air pollution and toxic rivers. Desertification threatens the country's future. The result of these man-made catastrophes has been the displacement of millions.

John Liu, director of the Environmental Education Media Project who spent 25 years in China and witnessed the disasters there, has an unapologetic, four-alarm warning: "Every ecosystem on the planet is under threat of catastrophic collapse, and if we don't begin to acknowledge and solve them, then we will go down."

"One of the marks of a global civilization is the extent to which we begin to conceive of whole-system problems and whole-system responses to those problems," notes political scientist Walt Anderson in his book "All Connected Now." "Events occurring in one part of the world are viewed as a matter of concern for the whole world in general and lead to an attempt at collective solutions."

Whether humanity can move toward a global civilization will depend by and large on how it can act collectively deal with what's arguably the central issue of our time: global warming. There's an old saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats." But in the age of melting glaciers, that tide is an ominous threat. The global age will not be as golden as some had predicted unless this dire challenge is met by whatever means necessary. For rising tides will not just send more refugees fleeing but, if ignored, could swallow humanity itself.

Andrew Lam is an editor with New America Media and the author of "Perfume Dreams: Reflections on the Vietnamese Diaspora" (Heyday Books, 2005).

© 2005 The San Francisco Chronicle

dalem · 11-17-2005, 13:46 PM

That article is ridiculous, but typical.

-dale

barrowaj · 11-18-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Please. Obesity is a decision.

For the most part, its a human behavior, which, depending on your philosophy, can be a decision. Think of this, 75 years ago obesity was not an issue at all. So what changed in the past 75 years, human behavior, or the humans' environment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Screw 'em. Their heart attacks are not my problem.

But they are. Whether the person who gets a heart attack is on medicare, has health insurance, or is even uninsured, you still pay for it. You pay for it in terms of the medical costs, and you pay for it in terms of that person's lost productivity, which drives up the cost of goods and services. So encouraging people to get in shape would reduce both the lost productivity, and the very expensive medical costs of treating the outcomes of obesity.

dalem · 11-19-2005, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

For the most part, its a human behavior, which, depending on your philosophy, can be a decision. Think of this, 75 years ago obesity was not an issue at all. So what changed in the past 75 years, human behavior, or the humans' environment?

But they are. Whether the person who gets a heart attack is on medicare, has health insurance, or is even uninsured, you still pay for it. You pay for it in terms of the medical costs, and you pay for it in terms of that person's lost productivity, which drives up the cost of goods and services. So encouraging people to get in shape would reduce both the lost productivity, and the very expensive medical costs of treating the outcomes of obesity.

Fine, encourage away. But legislation in either realm is stupid.

-dale

The Chap · 11-19-2005, 04:08 AM

Finally something to get one's teeth into rather than simply post provocative tripe!

As a scientist in another incarnation I scream with horror as I observe the theocratic hegemony of the climate doomsayers. This is not in any way, shape or form an employment of empirically based experimental - further: objective - method or methodology. It reminds one more of an hysterical ( and I mean that in the touchy/feely "earth mother" sense ) apocalyptic cult. Witness the vilification of Lomberg in Scientific American.

Other matters of slight import

Fat people were of consequence. They were mocked as gluttons. But I suppose if we are all flooded (fat chance) then the salvation of the obese is surely the bouancy of lard.

**Officer of Engineers** · 11-19-2005, 04:51 AM

What the hell? Andrew Lam is a commentator on Asian, specifically Chinese politics. When did he turned global warming alarmist?

Praxus · 11-19-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barrowaj

For the most part, its a human behavior, which, depending on your philosophy, can be a decision. Think of this, 75 years ago obesity was not an issue at all. So what changed in the past 75 years, human behavior, or the humans' environment?

That's just wrong. The change in the human enviroment allowed for a change in human behavior. So the answer is both.

Kid<2>Nite · 11-20-2005, 08:27 AM

[

LOL "suffering of millions" They should try a New England winter. That's suffering. I demand that we burn as much oil and coal as possible right away to relieve MY suffering.

================================

If this warm spell we've been experiencing lately is an example of global warming......I say ~~ BRING IT ON!! I want to see palm trees on Hampton beach. I’d like to go swimming year round. I want to pick oranges and pineapples from my back yard. I want to fire up my wood stove FOR THE LAST TIME and burn my snow shovels.

barrowaj · 11-20-2005, 14:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxus

That's just wrong. The change in the human enviroment allowed for a change in human behavior. So the answer is both.

I suppose it depends on how you define behavior. I hate arguing about definitions, but I needed to look up the definition for my own edification. Dictionary.com says behavior is "The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli." This would mean that if you gave the same stimuli (ie. McDonald's, and a job where they sat on their ass) to people of the 1930s, they would still get fat. So then behavior as a set of actions or reactions to a given stimulus is constant.

But clearly people can make their own decision about whether they want to eat more or exercise more, but I don't think people wake up and think "today I'm going to get more fat." So, as a result I think that there is a reason to try to discourage unhealthy eating and encourage exercise.

I know that you are a hardcore libertarian, so let me put my philosophy in other terms. The success of libertarianism is contingent on people acting in their own rational self interest (within the confines of law). However, people don't always act in their rational self interest. Furthermore, things like drugs and ultra high calorie fatty food (which can be likened to a drug in many ways), cause people to act even more irrationally. Therefore I think that there is an imperitive to try to curb irrational behavior. In the spirit of freedom, I think the best way to do this is generally by creating taxes and tax incentives rather than outright banning certain behaviors. Anyway, sorry for the digression, but I thought I had to let you know the reasoning behind my words. Learning a lot about Biology (especially evolution) really has changed my perspective on the world. You begin to see people not as someone with unbounded free will, but as a variable set of behaviors that respond to their environment.

Leader · 11-20-2005, 17:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid<2>Nite

[

LOL "suffering of millions" They should try a New England winter. That's suffering. I demand that we burn as much oil and coal as possible right away to relieve MY suffering.

================================

If this warm spell we've been experiencing lately is an example of global warming......I say ~~ BRING IT ON!! I want to see palm trees on Hampton beach. I’d like to go swimming year round. I want to pick oranges and pineapples from my back yard. I want to fire up my wood stove FOR THE LAST TIME and burn my snow shovels.

Yeah it’s really cold today in New England. I'm suffering. How can these liberal drive those hybrid cars? They have no soul!

Sombra · 11-25-2005, 02:51 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON - There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any point during the last 650,000 years, says a major new study that let scientists peer back in time at "greenhouse gases" that can help fuel global warming.

ADVERTISEMENT

By analyzing tiny air bubbles preserved in Antarctic ice for millennia, a team of European researchers highlights how people are dramatically influencing the buildup of these gases.

The remarkable research promises to spur "dramatically improved understanding" of climate change, said geosciences specialist Edward Brook of Oregon State University.

The study, by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica, is published Friday in the journal Science.

Today, scientists directly measure levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of fuel-burning and other processes. Those gases help trap solar heat, like the greenhouses for which they are named, resulting in a gradual warming of the planet.

Those measurements are disturbing: Levels of carbon dioxide have climbed from 280 parts per million two centuries ago to 380 ppm today. Earth's average temperature, meanwhile, increased about 1 degree Fahrenheit in recent decades, a relatively rapid rise. Many climate specialists warn that continued warming could have severe impacts, such as rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns.

Skeptics sometimes dismiss the rise in greenhouse gases as part of a naturally fluctuating cycle. The new study provides ever-more definitive evidence countering that view, however.

Deep Antarctic ice encases tiny air bubbles formed when snowflakes fell over hundreds of thousands of years. Extracting the air allows a direct measurement of the atmosphere at past points in time, to determine the naturally fluctuating range.

A previous ice-core sample had traced greenhouse gases back about 440,000 years. This new sample, from East Antarctica, goes 210,000 years further back in time.

Today's still rising level of carbon dioxide already is 27 percent higher than its peak during all those millennia, said lead researcher Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We are out of that natural range today," he said.

Moreover, that rise is occurring at a speed that "is over a factor of a hundred faster than anything we are seeing in the natural cycles," Stocker added. "It puts the present changes in context."

The team, which included scientists from France and Germany, found similar results for methane, another greenhouse gas.

Researchers also compared the gas levels to the Antarctic temperature over that time period, covering eight cycles of alternating glacial or ice ages and warm periods. They found a stable pattern: Lower levels of gases during cold periods and higher levels during warm periods.

The bottom line: "There's no natural condition that we know about in a really long time where the greenhouse gas levels were anywhere near what they are now. And these studies tell us that there's a strong relationship between temperature and greenhouse gases," explained Oregon State's Brook. "Which logically leads you to the conclusion that maybe we should worry about temperature change in the future."

A lengthening history of greenhouse gas concentrations should help climate specialists build better models about what the future might bring, Stocker said. It also may help answer additional questions such as how long ago humans started influencing greenhouse gas accumulations, and what impact other factors such as ocean currents play in the complexities of climate change.

Just a decade ago, scientists weren't sure it was possible to trace greenhouse gas concentrations back so far in ice. Now, Brook is part of another international research team preparing to hunt an ice-core sample dating back a million years or more, hoping to reach eras when Earth's temperature was significantly warmer.

Yahoo news

11-17-2005, 12:24 PM	#20 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 24,969 Country:	The Politics Of Climate Change By Andrew Lam 16 November, 2005 San Francisco Chronicle The glaciers are melting and receding. The sea rises to swallow islands and low-lying nations. Factories spew toxic chemicals into rivers and oceans, killing fish and the livelihoods of generations. Where the forest used to be, rains cause the bare hills to slide down onto homes. And the hurricanes keep on coming and coming. In their wake come millions who must flee house and home. Unprecedented mass movement defines our global age. But increasingly, among the displaced is a population whose status only in recent years has gained some legitimacy: environmental refugees. It categorizes people who suffer from a wide spectrum of environmental disasters, man-made or natural. Their homes have become inhabitable, veritable wastelands. Until recently, what made a refugee in the world's eyes was largely defined in political terms. The 1951 U.N. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees defined a refugee as a person with a genuine fear of being persecuted for membership in a particular social group or class. These days, the environmental refugee -- not necessarily persecuted, yet nevertheless forced to flee -- is gaining center stage. There are, according to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, approximately 18 million political, religious or ethnic refugees in the world today. By comparison, there are "only" an estimated 10 million environmental refugees worldwide. But the term "environmental refugee" has not been officially recognized, and many countries have not bothered to count them, especially if the population is internally displaced. The International Red Cross put the number as high as 25 million in 1999. A decade ago, ecologist Norman Myers predicted that humanity was slowly heading toward a "hidden crisis" in which ecosystems fail to sustain their inhabitants and people are forced off their land to seek shelter elsewhere. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, however, as the world watched in awe and horror while hundreds of thousands of displaced Americans scurried across the richest nation on Earth searching for new homes, Myers' "hidden crisis" is suddenly not so hidden. We can, with certainty, now add a million more to this growing population of environmental refugees. Being displaced by natural disasters may very well become the central epic of our time. Many nongovernmental organizations and the United Nations itself now estimate that the number of environmental refugees will surpass 150 million by mid-century -- due to agricultural disruption, deforestation, coastal flooding, shoreline erosion, industrial accidents and pollution. In an increasingly interconnected world, a series of environmental catastrophes could bring nations to their knees in a blink of an eye. A huge earthquake in California, for instance, could undermine the U.S. economy, and along with it, the global economy. Entire nations could disappear. The World Bank estimates that with a 50-centimeter rise in sea level, two-thirds of Bangladesh, with a population 140 million, would be underwater, resulting in countless deaths and millions of environmental refugees. But one need not evoke dramatic risks, such as tsunamis or the impact of large asteroids, to recognize the disasters that are taking place now. China, for example, remains a hot spot of environmental disaster. It is buckling under unsustainable development, rapid air pollution and toxic rivers. Desertification threatens the country's future. The result of these man-made catastrophes has been the displacement of millions. John Liu, director of the Environmental Education Media Project who spent 25 years in China and witnessed the disasters there, has an unapologetic, four-alarm warning: "Every ecosystem on the planet is under threat of catastrophic collapse, and if we don't begin to acknowledge and solve them, then we will go down." "One of the marks of a global civilization is the extent to which we begin to conceive of whole-system problems and whole-system responses to those problems," notes political scientist Walt Anderson in his book "All Connected Now." "Events occurring in one part of the world are viewed as a matter of concern for the whole world in general and lead to an attempt at collective solutions." Whether humanity can move toward a global civilization will depend by and large on how it can act collectively deal with what's arguably the central issue of our time: global warming. There's an old saying, "A rising tide lifts all boats." But in the age of melting glaciers, that tide is an ominous threat. The global age will not be as golden as some had predicted unless this dire challenge is met by whatever means necessary. For rising tides will not just send more refugees fleeing but, if ignored, could swallow humanity itself. Andrew Lam is an editor with New America Media and the author of "Perfume Dreams: Reflections on the Vietnamese Diaspora" (Heyday Books, 2005). © 2005 The San Francisco Chronicle __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

11-19-2005, 04:08 AM	#24 (permalink)
The Chap *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-18-04 Location: UK Posts: 1,083 Country:	Meat on the bone. Finally something to get one's teeth into rather than simply post provocative tripe! As a scientist in another incarnation I scream with horror as I observe the theocratic hegemony of the climate doomsayers. This is not in any way, shape or form an employment of empirically based experimental - further: objective - method or methodology. It reminds one more of an hysterical ( and I mean that in the touchy/feely "earth mother" sense ) apocalyptic cult. Witness the vilification of Lomberg in Scientific American. Other matters of slight import Fat people were of consequence. They were mocked as gluttons. But I suppose if we are all flooded (fat chance) then the salvation of the obese is surely the bouancy of lard. __________________ Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on it's liver, not it's ruddy stomach.

11-19-2005, 04:51 AM	#25 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 14,874 Country:	What the hell? Andrew Lam is a commentator on Asian, specifically Chinese politics. When did he turned global warming alarmist? __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle	Canmoore	Science & Tech	86	06-30-2007 04:32 AM
Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world	Parihaka	Science & Tech	13	04-01-2006 12:20 PM
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidty	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	0	03-08-2006 08:44 AM
10 Most Stupid questions (courtsey PDF)	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	2	07-24-2005 23:28 PM

11-16-2005, 17:11 PM	#16 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 1	"Well, hopefully the overwhelmingly vast majority of qualified scientists who do think that human driven global warming is a reality will encourage the government to do something about it." LOL, what a blatant freaking lie.

11-17-2005, 13:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 7,727 Country:	That article is ridiculous, but typical. -dale

11-20-2005, 08:27 AM	#27 (permalink)
Kid<2>Nite Regular Join Date: 11-07-05 Posts: 70	[ LOL "suffering of millions" They should try a New England winter. That's suffering. I demand that we burn as much oil and coal as possible right away to relieve MY suffering. ================================ If this warm spell we've been experiencing lately is an example of global warming......I say ~~ BRING IT ON!! I want to see palm trees on Hampton beach. I’d like to go swimming year round. I want to pick oranges and pineapples from my back yard. I want to fire up my wood stove FOR THE LAST TIME and burn my snow shovels.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)