Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2006 General Board Posts >> Maybe weird Al was right
        
(Message started by: zwibbs/Scott on Dec 15th, 2006, 8:09am)
Title: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by zwibbs/Scott on Dec 15th, 2006, 8:09am
The temperatures in NY are too warm. The projected forecast for the next week shows highs from 50-60 degrees. Last friday 12/08---was the first really cold day --everybody froze their galyones off, but then the strange warm air set in.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by chewy on Dec 15th, 2006, 8:15am
Vote YES on Global Warming!
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Opus on Dec 15th, 2006, 9:22am
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jun-20-Fri-2003/photos/weird.jpg

Weird Al wrote a song about warm winter days?

Oh yeah, Christmas at ground zero.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by JDH on Dec 15th, 2006, 9:22am
It's all George Bush's fault  ;;D

Jim
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by thomas on Dec 15th, 2006, 9:43am

on 12/15/06 at 09:22:23, JDH wrote:
It's all George Bush's fault  ;;D

Jim

Yep, Bill Clinton had lowered the average temperature by .002768 degrees during his term, but that damn Bush had to go and change all the policies on global warming and rasie the temp by twice as much. ;)
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by nosnowmen on Dec 15th, 2006, 9:49am
I live in Fl.  All I heard about last year was get ready for the worst hurricane season ever.  They were wrong.   Tell me this.  If they cant perdict the weather for next week let alone next hurrican season, then how are they so sure we are warming to our extinction?
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Paul98 on Dec 15th, 2006, 10:10am
Al Gore should look at the solar cycles and sun spot activity since ~ 1600.  Since 1900 there has been a rise in the # of sunspots during the solar cycles.  This data fits nicely with historical (ave.) temp records.

There is a reason Al isn't a scientist.  If it were not for the public pockets he would have starved to death a long time ago.

-P.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by brewcrew on Dec 15th, 2006, 10:18am
The government IS controlling the weather. Pass it on.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 10:26am

on 12/15/06 at 09:49:15, nosnowmen wrote:
I live in Fl.  All I heard about last year was get ready for the worst hurricane season ever.  They were wrong.   Tell me this.  If they cant perdict the weather for next week let alone next hurrican season, then how are they so sure we are warming to our extinction?


Not sure that climatologists are talking about human extinction - merely a costly and painful mess.  

How can it be explained? Statistics.  If you don't understand statistics, you cant understand the world.  There will always be random fluctuation and unpredictability.  But if a system is understood, we can better predict.  We will not always be right, but it we can be 'more righter' over time.  

If you have a bag full of 100 red marbles and 100 blue marbles, the same size, weight and texture,  and you pull out ten without looking, the most likely outcome will be 5 and 5.  But it could be 6 of one color, 4 of the other, or 10 of one color, none of the other. Or any other combo that adds up to 10.

If you start adding more red marbles, you are changing the probabilities.  With 200 red and 100 blue, you will still get unusual events, like 10 blue and no red.  That is just less common.

Adding greenhouse gases to the air is like adding red marbles - there is no doubt it increases heat retention and will change the overall outcome.  It doesn't mean that there will never be cold events or 10 blue marbles, just that the overall pattern shifts in one direction.

Polar ice is thinning. Glaciers are retreating. Ocean levels are rising.  
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 10:36am

on 12/15/06 at 10:10:38, Paul98 wrote:
Al Gore should look at the solar cycles and sun spot activity since ~ 1600.  Since 1900 there has been a rise in the # of sunspots during the solar cycles.  This data fits nicely with historical (ave.) temp records.

There is a reason Al isn't a scientist.  If it were not for the public pockets he would have starved to death a long time ago.

-P.



"The current scientific consensus is that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by brewcrew on Dec 15th, 2006, 10:41am

on 12/15/06 at 10:26:28, floridian wrote:
How can it be explained? Statistics.  If you don't understand statistics, you cant understand the world.


There are lies.

There are damned lies.

And there are statistics.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "backing into an answer?" You come up with the answer you want, then you find little bits and pieces of trivia to support your "findings."

You're right, Flo. If you don't understand statistics, you can't understand the world - of politics.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by zwibbs/Scott on Dec 15th, 2006, 10:52am
Even New York's own Al Sharpton is calling the weather-----Reedickalus.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:00am

on 12/15/06 at 10:41:39, brewcrew wrote:
There are lies.

There are damned lies.

And there are statistics.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "backing into an answer?" You come up with the answer you want, then you find little bits and pieces of trivia to support your "findings."

You're right, Flo. If you don't understand statistics, you can't understand the world - of politics.


Statistics are no different than words, pictures, maps, or other tools for describing the world.  They can be used dishonestly, but only a fool would reject all photography because there was a picture of him caught in a compromising position.

Wasn't long ago that people were saying 'smoking doesn't cause cancer, but it does cause statistics.'  There was a disinformation campaign to make people believe that there was no possibility of determining whether smoking caused an increase in cancer.  It does.

Today, the politicization of statistics is again being waged by powerful economic interests that would have to make changes if the public accepted the science showing that

Brewcrew, you simply don't understand how the scientific process works. The idea that humans are doing things that will change the atmosphere and cause it to warm has been examined for decades, and it started out as an idea with little support.  Over the course of thousands of studies, the evidence has become stronger and stronger, and it has gotten more acceptance.  It is now a concensus of the scientific community that anthropogenic global warming is real.  There are differences of opinion on how large this will ultimately be, or how fast it will occur.

The worst sort of politics comes from the people who are commited to opposing an idea, regardless of the facts.  Real scientists accept the idea that variation in the sun's output is one factor.  It is the right wing hacks that have siezed on that natural explanation and have ideologically rejected other possibilities.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by brewcrew on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:08am

on 12/15/06 at 11:00:58, floridian wrote:
Brewcrew, you simply don't understand how the scientific process works.

I, sir, am a scientist.

You and I are done.

PFDAN to you.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Paul98 on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:09am

on 12/15/06 at 10:36:37, floridian wrote:
"The current scientific consensus is that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm


GRID-Arendal main goals 2006-2009:

"Increase awareness through visual communication, popularised information, workshops and media tours".

A branch of the UN that uses pop science to promote an agenda.

-P.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:18am
Oh my.  Next thing you know the public health departments will be using visual communication, newspaper articles and other means of propaganda to advance their notion that high blood pressure should be treated!!  And in Africa, they will extend their mind-control agenda with media campaigns telling people to use mosquito netting to reduce the chances of getting malaria.  

Black helicopters are everywhere.  

Scientific organizations should educate the public on scienctific issues.  Even when it cheezes off some politicians or some economic interests.  
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by brewcrew on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:23am
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by nosnowmen on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:33am
Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.   Iam with you Brew.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:35am
Lovely quote - not sure how it is relevant to this discussion ... are you saying you think its time to pull the plug on reason and rationality?
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 11:58am

Quote:
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain....This is not the case.

The 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).

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Paul98 on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:03pm

on 12/15/06 at 11:35:19, floridian wrote:
Lovely quote - not sure how it is relevant to this discussion ... are you saying you think its time to pull the plug on reason and rationality?


What I would like to hear Flo is what is the change in energy retention /M2 in mW for a known % increase in atmospheric CO2.  What I keep hearing though is "the Boogie Man is going to get you" through such films ar "The day after Tomorrow", stories that in 10 years the seas are going to rise 100M, and a host of other dooms day stories that the media eagerly doles out as sound science and the politicians with an agenda intoxicate themselves on.

-P.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by nosnowmen on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:03pm
Because I dont agree with you I am wanting to pull the plug on reason and rationality?  It is YOUR reasoning that I dont agree with.  
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:11pm

on 12/15/06 at 12:03:32, nosnowmen wrote:
Because I dont agree with you I am wanting to pull the plug on reason and rationality?  It is YOUR reasoning that I dont agree with.  


Sorry, I was replying to BrewCrew's post, and you inserted your comment between us ;)   I shoulda quoted him, but didn't.


Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by BobG on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:16pm
The weather was invented in Vegas. Vegas has all rights to weather. It is sold to the highest bidder on an as-needed basis.
::)
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by nosnowmen on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:23pm
Sorry Florida.    
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Opus on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:31pm
Here is what I believe, take it or leave it:

Any form of energy we use that was not recently created with the suns energy will cause global warming, because heat is added to the earth. CO2 levels have nothing to do with this fact. For example city's are warmer because they create heat and hold it in with concrete. The only safe forms of energy are hydro, solar and wood.

The sun is getting brighter but the effects have been offset by global dimming caused by airplanes with jet engines. So the world evaporation rates have gone down even though the sun is brighter.

The arctic ice is melting. The fact that the ice displaces water and that water increases in volume when frozen may result in ocean levels going down if the ice sheet melts completely. The predictions are if the ice sheet does melt the gulf stream will stop and Europe will be thrown into an ice age.

The Antarctica ice sheets are melting, but not because of global warming but because of under sea volcanoes. This fact is of course never mentioned. There is an island off of Antarctica which has the largest fresh water flow in the world because a volcano on it is melting ice. The mainland of Antarctica's Ice sheet motion is accelerating. This has been found to caused by a volcano melting ice and causing a river to flow under the ice sheet. If there is a major eruption of an volcano in Antarctica, the melt will cause  ocean levels to rise quickly. This will not be caused by man, and we should be preparing for it now.

I didn't include links but if anyone is interested I should be able to find them. I have not read this stuff on the internet but have learned it from other sources.

Paul

edited because I suck at proof reading
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:33pm

on 12/15/06 at 12:03:00, Paul98 wrote:
What I would like to hear Flo is what is the change in energy retention /M2 in mW for a known % increase in atmospheric CO2.  What I keep hearing though is "the Boogie Man is going to get you" through such films ar "The day after Tomorrow", stories that in 10 years the seas are going to rise 100M, and a host of other dooms day stories that the media eagerly doles out as sound science and the politicians with an agenda intoxicate themselves on.

-P.


When NASA decided to look for life on other planets and realized that only the closest ones could be probed, they developed a pretty exact method for determining life based on the composition and temperature of the atmosphere, which could be remotely sensed.  Earth already has a greenhouse effect that raises the temperature of the atmosphere about 60 degrees.  Since the industrial age started, we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide, CFCs and other greenhouse gasses.  There is no doubt that this has significantly increased energy retention in the atmosphere. The real questions are how this will be buffered by the oceans and ice, and how it will interact with cloud cover.



Quote:
Using a very simple model, we can predict the mean surface temperature of the earth in the absence of a greenhouse effect.  We know that about 340 W/m2 of solar power per unit surface area insolates our planet.  About 30 percent of this energy is reflected, leaving an average of 240 watts to be absorbed by each square meter of surface area on earth.

All objects with a temperature above absolute zero emit radiation - and the earth is no exception.  According to physics, the power emitted by a black body (which for our purposes we will assume the earth to be) is sT4, where T is the surface temperature of the earth and s the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

If the earth and space are at radiative equilibrium, meaning there is no net gain or loss of heat by the earth, we can solve for the temperature of the earth as a function of the insolation and Stefan-Boltzmann constant.  Our model yields an average surface temperature of earth of 255 K, or about 0 degrees Fahrenheit.  Many parts of the earth would be even colder.  Imagine a world where much of the planet is covered by conditions we associate only with polar or subpolar regions - clearly this planet would be inhospitable to many forms of life on earth today.

Fortunately, the mean surface temperature of our planet is a much more pleasant 288 K (58 degrees Fahrenheit), allowing for temperate conditions over most of the planet suitable for the forms of life we know today.  The missing piece of our model is the greenhouse effect - gases that warm our planet the approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit and produce the climate we know today.  The two principal greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are carbon dioxide and water vapor.  Other greenhouse gases include methane and the chlorofluorocarbons.  These substances absorb heat in the infrared, the band of wavelengths at which the earth emits energy.  They then reradiate this energy, directing some of it back toward the earth's surface.  This is the extra source of heat that warms the earth beyond the frigid temperatures expected from our non-greenhouse model.
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate/index.shtml


I worked with the Stefman-Boltzman equation in grad school (remote sensing and geographic information systems).  We could go into calculations there with watts/meter, absolute temperature and thermal emissivities - but the question is why?  Trying to cast uncertainty and doubt, perhaps?  Trying to convince the public that its just too complicated, so believe whatever you want?  

You want to hear me talk about watts/meter?  I think the burden is on you to refute the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and all the other scientific societies that have stated that global warming is occurring, and that the biggest factor is human change to the composition of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by georgej on Dec 15th, 2006, 12:41pm
The fun part about these sorts of conversations is that the climate doesn't care squat what our opinions might be.  Whether or not people are causing global climate change, the climate's going to do what it does, no matter how strenuously we opine.  

Clearly, we've entered into a short-term warming trend, as compared to the 1400's to the 1800's.  About the only thing to argue about is how much of this is attributable to human activity, what this might mean, and what, if anything, ought to be done about it.  Global CO2 emissions are one factor in a complex process of climatological change.  There have been radical variations in climate before--historically, and prehistorically.  I suspect that the synergies driving these changes is still poorly understood.  And it would take only one major geological event--one that might not happen tomorrow, but which will inevitably happen--say, for example, the supervolcano under Yellowstone Park blasting off, and dumping cubic miles of dust and megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere to change the entire equation, and render any squabbles we have about human activities hilariously moot.

Is reducing the amount of human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere a good idea or not?  If it is a good idea, how is this best accomplished?  If reducing atmospheric CO2 would cause a cascade of effects that propelled us into a prolonged period of global cooling, is this a good thing?

I don't know the definitive answers to this--and I doubt that anyone else does either.  We're not going to come to any answers, though, by exercising opinions.  In any case, whatever happens, I suspect that human beings will survive.  We've done it before.

I guess my point is that this ought to be a matter for discussion, not bickering.  Is dialogue possible?  It seems to be out of fashion at the moment, but I continue to believe that it is possible.  It is, in fact, the only way that anything is ever resolved.  Let's move forward, not in circles.

Best wishes,

George  
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Gena on Dec 15th, 2006, 1:19pm
1500 years ago scientist knew that the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years ago scientist knew that the earth was flat, today scientist know that global warming is a fact.....

Only time will tell.... ;;D
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 1:35pm

on 12/15/06 at 13:19:02, Gena wrote:
1500 years ago scientist knew that the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years ago scientist knew that the earth was flat, today scientist know that global warming is a fact.....

Only time will tell.... ;;D


I get your point - sorta.  But Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of our globe 2200 years ago  - he wasn't exact, but he wasn't far off.  

The Babylonians and Greeks knew about celestial orbits and were able to predict eclipses and other events - the Antikythera device was a sophisticated computing device.

It was bad religion and politics that supressed science in Europe.  Kinda like the attacks on evolution today.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Paul98 on Dec 15th, 2006, 1:36pm

on 12/15/06 at 12:33:03, floridian wrote:


You want to hear me talk about watts/meter?  I think the burden is on you to refute the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and all the other scientific societies that have stated that global warming is occurring, and that the biggest factor is human change to the composition of the atmosphere.


Sorry Flo, I should have phrased my sentence differently.  I should have said:  "what I want to hear from the media Flo,.....

I have no doubt that global warming is occuring Flo.  It has been warming for the last 10,000 years.  How much is due to man's activity?  All? Some? a wee bit?  I have read in AAAS and Science that NASA's measurments of earth's atmospheric temps have actually dropped since they had satellites.  So even within the refereed journals there is conflicting conclusions.   To cherry pick only articals and research that backs the conclusion you want (you being anybody) is the same as me conducting an experiment 5 times and having the results come out 2 one way and 3 the other way and then me selecting only the ones I want.  It is not legit science.  The media and the politicians are doing just this and it is wrong.

-P.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by CynthiaB on Dec 15th, 2006, 1:45pm
Much like manners, debate and intelligent discussion have fallen out of fashion George.

Thus far, this thread has contributed to an enjoyable Friday afternoon. I hope it continues.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by brewcrew on Dec 15th, 2006, 1:53pm
When someone comes straight out and insults my intelligence by stating that I don't understand how the scientific process works, that's where I end the discussion. It is more than obvious to me that everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - that follows is agenda-driven.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by floridian on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:08pm

on 12/15/06 at 13:36:34, Paul98 wrote:
Sorry Flo, I should have phrased my sentence differently.  I should have said:  "what I want to hear from the media Flo,.....

I have no doubt that global warming is occuring Flo.  It has been warming for the last 10,000 years.  How much is due to man's activity?  All? Some? a wee bit?  I have read in AAAS and Science that NASA's measurments of earth's atmospheric temps have actually dropped since they had satellites.  So even within the refereed journals there is conflicting conclusions.   To cherry pick only articals and research that backs the conclusion you want (you being anybody) is the same as me conducting an experiment 5 times and having the results come out 2 one way and 3 the other way and then me selecting only the ones I want.  It is not legit science.  The media and the politicians are doing just this and it is wrong.

-P.


The temperature readings from satellites tend to drop over time. We also see satellite images get darker and darker as the imaging system decays.  

Uncallibrated, the temperature readings do not show the same rise as we see from other indicators - ground  and ocean based thermometers, polar ice, montane glaciers, tree rings, etc.  The issue then becomes which paint an accurate picture of what is really going on.  If you assume that the space thermometers have always been accurate, then what we see on the Earth is innexplicable. If you accept the idea that the sensors change, then they can be callibrated using information that is higher order and known to be accurate.    

The movie you mentioned was craptastic - but so was the Andromeda strain. Science Fiction.  As far as the real-news part of the media goes, I agree with you that things are often lacking. The average reporter has never taken time to understand this issue, but that hasn't stopped them from reporting. There are wildly innacurate statements that miss the truth on all sides.  

I'm not making dire predictions about global warming, but I do agree with the majority of scientific community that it is real.  I think there will be costs in the future - don't know how big, when, or who gets lucky and has to burden those costs.  It is to our advantage to start thinking about these economic externalities now - and add them to other 'costs' of fossil fuels that are not included at the pump - pollution, dependency on volatile regions, etc. etc.  
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Paul98 on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:28pm
Flo, I agree with you that things are and will get warmer.  Is it the dire immeadiate calamity that is being hyped?  No.  Man is not building dwellings that will last for 100's of years any more.  Even if say in 2-3 hundred years coastal cities are innundated and crops fail due to weather changes, I think there will be many less humans around to worry about by then.  My bet is on a plague on a scale made possible by modern transportation and urban environment.

-P.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Jonny on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:43pm
I blame the cows, the damn cows and their farts ;;D
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by LeLimey on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:44pm

on 12/15/06 at 15:43:19, Jonny wrote:
I blame the cows, the damn cows and their farts ;;D



Jonny's right!
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Paul98 on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:46pm

on 12/15/06 at 15:43:19, Jonny wrote:
I blame the cows, the damn cows and their farts ;;D


It ain't the cows...Pull my finger Bro ;;D

-P.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by LeLimey on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:47pm

on 12/15/06 at 15:46:11, Paul98 wrote:
It ain't the cows...Pull my finger Bro ;;D

-P.



Yeah.. just another load of old bull  ::)
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Jonny on Dec 15th, 2006, 3:51pm
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by vietvet2tours on Dec 15th, 2006, 4:09pm
It's my fault.I'll go talk to the girls about their gaseous problem and let ya know how it goes
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by vietvet2tours on Dec 15th, 2006, 4:26pm
Here ya go.                                                                                      http://www.funpic.hu/en.picview.php?id=1256&c=34&s=dd&p=11
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by JeffB on Dec 15th, 2006, 4:35pm
We should feed them Bean-o after their meals.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by BarbaraD on Dec 15th, 2006, 4:47pm

on 12/15/06 at 12:16:01, BobG wrote:
The weather was invented in Vegas. Vegas has all rights to weather. It is sold to the highest bidder on an as-needed basis.
::)

And apparently some of us (states that is) forgot to bid and we just got what you gave us -- Live and learn!!!
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by BobG on Dec 15th, 2006, 5:26pm
Global warming? Global cooling? It all depends on the person selling the book. Follow the money.

And, I don't give a rat's ass.
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by Charlie on Dec 15th, 2006, 6:07pm
The deal is that it would be nice not to add to the problem. We can do that if we want.

Those that spend the most time howling about how it's all bullshit are those that would have to pay the most for dealing with it.

Charlie
Title: Re: Maybe weird Al was right
Post by CynthiaB on Dec 15th, 2006, 8:21pm
Long before we are extinct from the effects of global warming, we will have hated each other to death.


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.